MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404403553 · doi:10.1097/mat.0000000000002344

Survival and Neurocognitive Outcomes After Noncardiac Illness Indications for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Young Children

2024· article· en· W4404403553 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren Ryan, Gwen Y. Bond, Sara Khademioureh, Irina Dinu, Don Granoski, Laurance Lequier, Charlene M.T. Robertson, Ari R. Joffe

Bibliographic record

VenueASAIO Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationPediatricsNeurocognitiveConfidence intervalOdds ratioAbnormalityPopulationCohortInternal medicinePsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This referral center prospective inception cohort study included 84 consecutive children having extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for noncardiac illness indications at the age of less than 6 years from 2000 to 2017. Long-term outcomes were survival, neurocognitive ( Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence ) and functional (General Adaptive Composite) scores, and disability, with optimal outcome defined as scores greater than or equal to 80 and without disability. Age at cannulation was 551 (standard deviation [SD] = 571) days, 40 (47.6%) were male, 12 (14.3%) had known chromosomal abnormality, and 15 (17.9%) had nonchromosomal congenital abnormality. Survival was 45 (53.6%) to hospital discharge, and 41 (48.8%) to age 6 years. In 40/41 (97.6%) survivors with follow-up, at mean age of 56.1 (SD = 5.1) months, neurocognitive and functional scores were shifted to the left, with 30-42.5% having a score greater than 2 SD below population norms. Optimal outcome occurred in 11/40 (27.5%) survivors, and 11/84 (13.1%) overall. On multiple regression full-scale intelligence quotient was associated with longer time in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) pre-ECMO (OR per hour -0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.03 to -0.01; p = 0.005), known chromosomal abnormality (odds ratio [OR] = -18.99, 95% CI = -29.04 to -8.04; p = 0.001), and seizure pre-ECMO (OR = -17.00, 95% CI = -30.00 to -4.00; p = 0.012). Predictors of mortality included peak lactate on ECMO and nonchromosomal congenital abnormality. Findings may help with ECMO decision-making and counseling.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASAIO JournalSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207