Practice variation using the hybrid stage I procedure in congenital heart disease: Results from a national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Hybrid stage I palliation has been used in many clinical scenarios including initial palliation in single ventricle heart disease, a bridge to biventricular repair, a bridge to transplant, and as a destination therapy. There is considerable hybrid stage I palliation practice variation, which we aimed to better understand in this study. Methods: Survey-based assessment of practice variation related to hybrid stage I palliation was sent to congenital heart centers across the United States and Canada. Results: Of the 106 centers surveyed, responses were received from 54 centers (50.9%). Of respondents, 45 centers perform hybrid stage I palliation. Centers most commonly (97.7%) perform hybrid stage I palliation on "high-risk" patients with single ventricle heart disease. Regarding the technical aspects of hybrid stage I palliation, most centers (95.3%) accomplish restrictive pulmonary blood flow using pulmonary artery bands and primarily use changes in oxygen saturation (34.1%) to identify appropriate restriction. Ductal stents are most often used (67.4%) to maintain ductal patency. Only 10 centers (23.3%) routinely enlarge the atrial septal defect. Indications for atrial septal defect intervention varied widely. Most centers (71.9%) discharge patients home to follow with a formal "interstage" program. Conclusions: There is significant variation in practice patterns for hybrid stage I palliation indications, technical aspects, and postoperative care. Therefore, generalizability of single-center studies on outcomes after hybrid stage I palliation is limited. Future multicenter studies are needed to best delineate which patients benefit most from hybrid stage I palliation and to further define optimal approaches to caring for these patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".