MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014172650 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.090997

Comparison of Brain Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) and NT-proBNP in Screening for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis

2010· article· en· W2014172650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lorenzo Cavagna, Roberto Caporali, Catherine Klersy, Stefano Ghio, Riccardo Albertini, Laura Scelsi, Remigio Moratti, Claudia Bonino, Carlomaurizio Montecucco

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineBrain natriuretic peptideDLCOCardiologyNatriuretic peptidePulmonary hypertensionArea under the curveHeart failureLungDiffusing capacity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in screening for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in systemic sclerosis (SSc). METHODS: Between January 2008 and March 2009, outpatients referred to our unit and satisfying LeRoy criteria for SSc were assessed for PAH. Doppler echocardiography, BNP measurement, and NT-proBNP measurement were done concomitantly for a complete clinical, instrumental, and biochemical evaluation. Right-heart catheterization was carried out in cases of suspected PAH [estimated pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP) ≥ 36 mm Hg; diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) ≤ 50% of predicted value; 1-year DLCO decline ≥ 20% in absence of pulmonary fibrosis; unexplained dyspnea]. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients were enrolled (124 women, 11 men; 96 limited SSc, 39 diffuse SSc); precapillary PAH was found in 20 patients (15 limited SSc, 5 diffuse SSc). The estimated PAP correlated with both BNP (R = 0.3; 95% CI 0.14-0.44) and NT-proBNP (R = 0.3, 95% CI 0.14-0.45). BNP [area under the curve (AUC) 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.89] was slightly superior to NT-proBNP (AUC 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.80) in identification of PAH, with diagnosis cutoff values of 64 pg/ml (sensitivity 60%, specificity 87%) and 239.4 pg/ml (sensitivity 45%, specificity 90%), respectively. BNP (log-transformed, p = 0.032) and creatinine (p = 0.049) were independent predictors of PAH, while NT-proBNP was not (p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: In our single-center study, the performance of BNP was slightly superior to that of NT-proBNP in PAH screening of patients with SSc, although normal levels of these markers do not exclude diagnosis. We observed that impaired renal function is associated with an increased risk of PAH in SSc. Further multicenter studies are needed to confirm our results (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00617487).

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)0.012
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations73
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207