MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Worsening Renal Function and Prognosis in Pulmonary Hypertension Patients Hospitalized for Right Heart Failure

2012· article· en· W1646456671 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Mielniczuk, George Chandy, Duncan J. Stewart, V. Contreras-Dominguez, Haissam Haddad, C. Pugliese, Ross A. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueCongestive Heart Failure · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal functionCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failureCreatininePulmonary hypertensionIncidence (geometry)Blood pressureKidney disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased central venous pressures have been associated with the development of worsening renal function (WRF), an important marker of prognosis. We sought to determine the incidence and prognostic significance of WRF in pulmonary hypertension patients (PH) with isolated right HF. A prospective study of PH clinic patients admitted to hospital for right HF. WRF was defined as a rise in creatinine of 26 μmol/L (0.3 mg/dL) within the first 48 hours of admission. A total of 32 patients were enrolled in this study, 67% of patients had moderate-severe chronic kidney disease with an eGFR ≤ 60 mL/min and 34% (n=11) developed WRF during their admission. The mean right atrial pressure was higher in patients with WRF (19 ± 7 mm Hg vs 12 ± 6 mm Hg, P=.05). A total of 36% of patients with WRF died in hospital compared to 5% in the group that did not develop WRF (OR for hospital death 13.3 ± 16, P=.03). The combined endpoint of death or readmission at 6 months was 45% in the WRF group and 43% in the group without WRF (P=.89). Significant renal dysfunction is common in patients with PH and an acute decline in renal function is an important marker of in hospital death and short term mortality in right heart failure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCongestive Heart FailureSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207