An evidence-based approach to the management of pulmonary arterial hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Evidence-based therapies and guidelines for pulmonary arterial hypertension are critiqued. RECENT FINDINGS: Morbidity and mortality in pulmonary arterial hypertension reflects failure of right ventricular compensation for increased afterload caused by obstructive pulmonary arterial remodeling. This predominantly reflects excessive proliferation/impaired apoptosis of smooth muscle and endothelial cells, rather than vasoconstriction. To exclude confounding effects of cardiac output and left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, the diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension should require a pulmonary vascular resistance >3 Wood-units, not simply a mean pulmonary arterial pressure >25 mmHg. A 'positive' response (20% fall in pulmonary arterial pressure/pulmonary vascular resistance PAP/PVR) to acute, selective, pulmonary vasodilators (e.g. inhaled nitric oxide), occurs in 20% of patients, portends a favorable prognosis and justifies a trial of calcium channel blockers. Randomized controlled trials support treatment of NYHA class III pulmonary arterial hypertension with oral endothelin antagonists or phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. Prostacyclin analogues (inhaled/subcutaneous) are useful adjunctive therapies. Intravenous epoprostenol remains the therapeutic mainstay for class IV PAH. Emerging antiproliferative-proapoptotic therapies that merit investigator-initiated clinical trials include: statins, Imatinib, NONO-ates, anti-survivin, potassium channel modulation, and dichloroacetate. SUMMARY: The diagnostic criteria for pulmonary arterial hypertension should be revised to include PVR. Sildenafil's efficacy and price recommend it as a first-line oral therapy. New pulmonary arterial hypertension-regression therapies and therapeutic combinations offer the potential for cure of pulmonary arterial 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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".