Evaluation and treatment of infective endocarditis in children and adolescents with underlying CHD: a Paediatric Acute Care Cardiology Collaborative Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in children and adolescents with underlying CHD. Appropriate diagnostic workup and management in the inpatient setting can be challenging in this patient population due to the spectrum of disease complexity and the dynamic nature of the field. Therefore, the Paediatric Acute Care Cardiology Collaborative has undertaken the creation of this clinical practice guideline. METHODS: A panel of paediatric cardiologists, infectious disease specialists, intensivists, advanced practice practitioners, pharmacists, cardiothoracic surgeons, and a dentist was convened. The literature was systematically reviewed for relevant articles on the management of infective endocarditis in patients with CHD. Using the modified Delphi technique, recommendations were generated and put through iterative Delphi rounds to achieve consensus for inclusion. RESULTS: Based on 127 articles that met the inclusion criteria, 82 recommendations were generated, 50 of which achieved consensus for inclusion and are included in this guideline. They address risk factors specific to CHD lesion type and prior interventions including implanted material, diagnostic considerations, management strategies, and recommendations on counselling other healthcare providers, patients, and families. Of the 50 consensus recommendations, 36 are strong recommendations, though 20 have low or very low quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A central theme in this guideline is that an individual's specific CHD lesion and prior interventions must be carefully considered for risk stratification, diagnostic approach, and management. While most are strong recommendations, many are supported by low quality of evidence, emphasising the need for further research in this subject.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".