MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410040269 · doi:10.1161/jaha.124.037079

Impact of COVID‐19 on Prenatal Diagnosis and Surgical Outcomes of Congenital Heart Disease: Fetal Heart Society and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Collaborative Study

2025· article· en· W4410040269 on OpenAlexaff
Bhawna Arya, Miza Salim Hammoud, Andrew J. Toth, Joyce Woo, Matthew Campbell, Angira Patel, Lindsay A. Edwards, Lindsay R. Freud, Rupali Gandhi, Anita Krishnan, Shabnam Peyvandi, Nelangi M. Pinto, Christina Ronai, S. Kristen Sexson Tejtel, Anita J. Moon‐Grady, Mary T. Donofrio, Shubhika Srivastava, Tara Karamlou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeTriagePediatricsPrenatal carePrenatal diagnosisPandemicRetrospective cohort studyGestational agePregnancyHeart diseaseEmergency medicineFetusDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SurgeryInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Fetal echocardiography is the mainstay of prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease. The COVID‐19 pandemic led to shifts in triage of prenatal services. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of COVID‐19 restrictions on prenatal diagnosis, surgical outcomes, and disparities in neonatal critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) management in the United States during the pandemic's first year. Methods and Results A multi‐institutional retrospective cohort study compared neonatal CCHD outcomes (requiring surgery within 60 days of birth) 1 year prior (prepandemic era) and during the peak pandemic era, supplemented by a Fetal Heart Society survey assessing regional practice changes. Data on prenatal diagnosis, demographics, outcomes, and 2020 state Area Deprivation Index were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sum and χ 2 tests. The survey, completed by 72 fetal cardiologists from 9 US census regions, showed 75% of institutions implemented restrictions by March 2020, affecting triage, referrals, and number of prenatal cardiology visits. Compared with CCHD neonates born prepandemic (n=4637), those born during the pandemic (n=1806) had a higher proportion of prenatal diagnosis (66% versus 63%, P <0.05). There were no significant differences in complications or mortality, but pandemic‐era neonates had longer hospital stays. During the pandemic, CCHD neonates had a more disadvantaged Area Deprivation Index and had surgery at hospitals located in more advantaged regions. Conclusions Although pandemic‐driven care delivery adjustments affected perinatal cardiology referrals and triage, prenatal diagnosis, perioperative outcomes, and survival remained robust. The management of CCHD demonstrates health care resilience, maintaining core prenatal and perioperative care. Regional variations highlight the need for targeted strategies to address disparities during health care crises.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→