MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4134957: Survival and Cardiac Recovery in Pediatric Dilated Cardiomyopathy: A Long-term Cohort Study of Risk Factors, Prognosis, and Health Outcomes Followed into Adulthood

2024· article· en· W4404323510 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jose C. Navarro, Aamir Jeewa, Jiming Fang, Douglas Lee, Emilie Jean‐St‐Michel

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortCardiomyopathyDilated cardiomyopathyInternal medicineHeart failureCardiologyPediatricsCohort studyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is the most common cause of pediatric heart failure (HF), but there is limited literature on its long-term prognosis and treatment outcomes. We examined risk factors for long-term morbidity and mortality and outcomes of care in childhood-onset DCM. Methods: Electronic medical records from a tertiary care pediatric hospital (SickKids, Toronto, Canada) were used to retrospectively follow children ages 0–18 years with DCM from January 1, 2001 to July 1, 2017. Provincial healthcare administrative data was used to monitor outcomes recorded outside of SickKids, following patients during the same time period and into adulthood (age >18 years) until August 31, 2023. We compared DCM cases, with or without echocardiographic recovery (LVEDD z score < 2 and LVEF ≥ 55%), and controls matched on sex, age, and urban/rural residence on a range of health and health service outcomes. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, heart transplant (HT), and inpatient admission for HF. Among cases, Cox proportional hazards regression with backwards selection was used to identify demographic, disease, and treatment characteristics associated with each primary outcome, with candidate variables selected based on univariate analysis and clinical judgment. Results: We studied 156 patients with DCM and 780 controls for a median of 14.8 years. Median age at the end of follow-up was 16.2 years. Compared with controls, DCM cases had higher rates of all-cause death, HT, and HF admission (all P <0.001), as well as chronic kidney disease ( P <0.001) and diabetes ( P =0.002). Compared to cases with recovered DCM (n=53), non-recovered cases had higher rates of death, HT, and HF admission (all P <0.001). On multivariable analysis, beta blockers were associated with reduced mortality risk (HR 0.343, 95% CI 0.162–0.727). Using any HF medication (HR 0.205, 95% CI 0.102–0.412) and living in an urban versus a rural area (HR 0.166, 95% CI 0.048–0.573) decreased HT risk. Idiopathic (HR 4.16, 95% CI 1.42–12.2) or sarcomeric mutation-related (HR 9.86, 95% CI 2.30–42.3) DCM were associated with higher HT risk than myocarditis-related DCM. Conclusions: While childhood DCM is associated with long-term adverse health and increased health care utilization, patients who recover have improved morbidity and mortality. Treatment (e.g. medication or access to urban specialist care) was associated with lower mortality and HT risk in DCM.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→