MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exercise Intolerance in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. The Role of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing

2015· article· en· W1976530143 on OpenAlexaff
J. Alberto Neder, Roberta Pulcheri Ramos, Jaquelina Sonoe Ota Arakaki, Daniel M. Hirai, Christine L. D’Arsigny, Denis E. O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCanadian Society for Exercise Physiology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExercise intolerancePulmonary hypertensionCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 23-year-old, never-smoking woman who was physically fit since childhood developed progressive intolerance to exertion in the preceding 12 months. She was diagnosed with severe pulmonary arterial hypertension due to an atrial septal defect and subsequently underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing. An understanding of exercise physiology was essential in identifying the pathophysiological causes of her dyspnea on exertion and assessing the response to pharmacological therapy. A white, 23-year-old woman sought medical attention complaining of progressive exercise limitation due to shortness of breath and “fatigue,” which started about a year earlier. She denied cough, wheezing, or any other respiratory symptoms. She reported being physically active since childhood, but had become mildly limited during daily life activities (New York Heart Association Class II). She denied smoking, significant occupational or environmental exposures, use of illicit drugs, and exposure to drugs with known lung toxicity. She weighed 50 kg and her height was 157 cm.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207