Worsening Renal Function and Prognosis in Pulmonary Hypertension Patients Hospitalized for Right Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".