MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W45094403

Late outcomes after pulmonary valve balloon dilatation in neonates, infants and children.

2005· article· en· W45094403 on OpenAlexaff
Yael Garty, Gruschen Veldtman, Kyong Lee, Lee Benson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyPulmonary regurgitationBalloon dilatationInternal medicinePulmonary valveBalloon dilationBalloonBody surface areaStenosisPediatricsTetralogy of FallotHeart disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This review was designed to document late outcomes after percutaneous balloon dilation (PBD) of the pulmonary valve (PV) on infants and children. BACKGROUND: PBD is the treatment of choice for PV stenosis. While short and intermediate term results are excellent, late outcomes, with respect to growth of the right heart are poorly defined. METHODS: Clinical data and serial echocardiograms were reviewed for children who had PBD between 1984 and 1992. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty children were identified. PV gradients decreased from 62+/-29 to 23+/-20 mmHg (p<0.0001) and remained low during a mean follow-up of 11.9+/-3.1 (range 3.7 to 19.3 years). Freedom from re-intervention at 1, 10 and 15 years were: 90%, 83%, and 77%. Pulmonary regurgitation (PR) increased during follow-up such that 57% of children had moderate or severe PR at last follow-up. These children tended to have a smaller body surface area (0.52 vs. 0.82 m2, p=0.04), were younger (3.1 vs. 5.9 years, p=0.004), and less likely to be syndromic (p=0.04). Only children with severe PR demonstrated a significant increase in right ventricular (RV) size. Tricuspid and pulmonary annuli grew with the child's growth, the PV demonstrating catch-up growth (PV z-score: negative 1.3 vs. negative 0.7 at last follow-up, p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Following PBD in childhood, gradient reduction persists and RV structures grow appropriately in the majority of children. Although late PR occurs commonly, it is well tolerated. While life-long follow-up is essential, excellent outcome can be anticipated.

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations68
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207