Effectiveness of Phosphodiesterase‐5 Inhibitor Therapy for Portopulmonary Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Portopulmonary hypertension is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor therapy is efficacious in other causes of WHO group I pulmonary arterial hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor therapy in patients with portopulmonary hypertension. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective cohort study that included patients with a diagnosis of portopulmonary hypertension was performed. The primary outcome was change in pulmonary vascular resistance after six months of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor therapy. A secondary evaluation investigated the effect on other hemodynamic measurements, 6 min walk distance, functional class, safety outcomes and survival. RESULTS: Of 1385 patients screened, 25 patients with portopulmonary hypertension were identified, of whom 20 received a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor. After six months, there was a significant decrease in pulmonary vascular resistance (-236 dyn • s • cm(-5) [95% CI -343 dyn • s • cm(-5) to -130 dyn • s • cm(-5)]; P<0.001), mean pulmonary artery pressure (-8.9 mmHg [95% CI -13.7 mmHg to -4.2 mmHg]; P=0.001) and an increase in Fick cardiac output (0.9 L/min [95% CI 0.1 L/min to 1.6 L/min]; P=0.02). There was no change in 6 min walk distance. The proportion of subjects with a WHO functional class III or IV was significantly reduced at six months compared with baseline (18% versus 61%; P=0.002). Safety outcomes did not reveal any adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor therapy improved hemodynamics and functional class at six months in a cohort of patients with portopulmonary hypertension.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".