MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Riociguat for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH): A responder analysis from the phase III PATENT-1 study

2013· article· en· W1788829135 on OpenAlexaff
Ekkehard Grünig, Nazzareno Galiè, Marc Humbert, Anne Keogh, David Langleben, Lewis J. Rubin, Rudolf Speich, Arno Fritsch, Neil Davie

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiociguatMedicinePlaceboInternal medicineHemodynamicsPulmonary hypertensionChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionCardiologyClinical trialGastroenterologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background In PATENT-1, riociguat significantly improved 6-min walking distance (6MWD) and a range of secondary endpoints, including hemodynamics, NT-proBNP, and WHO functional class (FC), in patients (pts) with PAH. For several of these endpoints, threshold criteria have been defined that correlate with favorable clinical outcome. Aims To investigate the proportion of pts who fulfilled these criteria in PATENT-1. Methods PATENT-1 was a double-blind randomized trial in which pts with PAH received 12 wks’ oral treatment with placebo, an individual titration of riociguat (up to 2.5 mg tid), or a capped titration of riociguat (up to 1.5 mg tid). Increase in 6MWD ≥40 m, 6MWD ≥380 m, cardiac index (CI) ≥2.5 L/min/m 2 , PVR <500 dyn·s·cm -5 , mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO 2 ) ≥65%, FC I/II, and NT-proBNP <1800 pg/mL were chosen as criteria of a positive response based on studies showing their prognostic relevance at baseline (BL) and after targeted therapy. Results Similar proportions of pts met the selected criteria in the riociguat and placebo groups at baseline. The proportion of pts who met these criteria at Wk 12 was increased in the riociguat group, while it remained unchanged or decreased in the placebo group. Criteria, % Riociguat individual titration Placebo N BL Wk 12 N BL Wk 12 6MWD increase ≥40 m 254 n/a 43 126 n/a 23 6MWD ≥380 m 254 45 63 126 58 55 CI ≥2.5 L/min/m 2 233 45 76 108 48 44 PVR <500 dyn⋅s⋅cm -5 232 30 49 107 27 30 SvO 2 ≥65% 210 56 73 100 61 47 FC I/II 254 44 60 125 51 54 NT-proBNP <1800 pg/mL 228 82 89 106 79 73 Conclusions Riociguat increased the proportion of pts who fulfilled criteria defining a positive response to therapy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory Journal→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→