MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416336515 · doi:10.3390/reports8040238

Left Ventricular to Right Atrial Shunt in a Preterm Infant: A Case Report

2025· article· en· W4416336515 on OpenAlexafffund
Aimann Surak

Bibliographic record

VenueReports — Medical Cases Images and Videos · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsShunt (medical)Intensive careNeonatal intensive care unitHeart diseaseRight-to-left shunt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Clinical Significance: Premature infants are at high risk of life-threatening complications due to the immaturity of multiple organ systems, and close monitoring in neonatal intensive care units is indispensable for their stabilization, survival, and morbidities. Despite major advances in perinatal care, cardiovascular pathology remains one of the most frequent morbidities in this population. Targeted neonatal echocardiography is implemented in many neonatal intensive care units around the world; it provides earlier and precise assessment during hemodynamic instability, allowing targeted management and follow-up. It can also detect red flags for anatomical heart defects. Left ventricular to right atrial shunt is a rare and presents a challenging diagnostic entity in very premature neonates. Case Presentation: We present a case of left ventricular to right atrial shunt in a preterm baby that was diagnosed by the Targeted neonatal echocardiography team. Conclusions: The purpose of this case report is to illustrate how targeted neonatal echocardiography enabled the identification of this rare diagnosis in a premature infant, which underscores its growing utility and value in neonatal care.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.005
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.321
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 designCase report
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReports — Medical Cases Images and VideosSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207