MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410351816 · doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.101758

Diagnosis of Diastolic Dysfunction in Adults With Failing Fontan Circulation

2025· review· en· W4410351816 on OpenAlexafffund
Ibrahim Khayyat, Maria Victoria Ordoñez, Ariane Marelli, Judith Therrien

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Advances · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsCardiologyInternal medicineDiastoleMedicineCirculation (fluid dynamics)Blood pressureMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the initial Fontan procedure introduced in 1968 for tricuspid atresia, significant advancements have expanded its application to various congenital cardiac anomalies where a biventricular circulation is unattainable. Despite improved survival rates, Fontan circulation tends to fail over time leading to late morbidity and mortality. Diastolic dysfunction is increasingly recognized as a significant contributor to circulatory insufficiency and failure in Fontan patients. This review aims to assess the current evidence for diagnosing diastolic dysfunction in adults with failing Fontan circulation, including biomarkers, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and catheterization. While advancements have been made in understanding diastolic dysfunction in single ventricles, challenges remain due to the unique anatomy and physiology of Fontan patients. Future research should focus on refining diagnostic parameters and exploring potential therapies tailored to the distinct needs of this population.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC AdvancesSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207