MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019890804 · doi:10.1086/674885

Perioperative Pharmacological Management of Pulmonary Hypertensive Crisis during Congenital Heart Surgery

2014· review· en· W2019890804 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan W. Brunner, Vinicio A. de Jesús Pérez, Alice Richter, François Haddad, André Denault, Vanessa Rojas, Ke Yuan, Mark Orcholski, Xiao‐Bo Liao

Bibliographic record

VenuePulmonary Circulation · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativePulmonary hypertensionHypertensive crisisProstacyclinNitric oxideIntensive care medicineCardiologyCardiopulmonary bypassHeart diseaseInternal medicineAnesthesiaBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary hypertensive crisis is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension secondary to congenital heart disease (PAH-CHD) who require cardiac surgery. At present, prevention and management of perioperative pulmonary hypertensive crisis is aimed at optimizing cardiopulmonary interactions by targeting prostacyclin, endothelin, and nitric oxide signaling pathways within the pulmonary circulation with various pharmacological agents. This review is aimed at familiarizing the practitioner with the current pharmacological treatment for dealing with perioperative pulmonary hypertensive crisis in PAH-CHD patients. Given the life-threatening complications associated with pulmonary hypertensive crisis, proper perioperative planning can help anticipate cardiopulmonary complications and optimize surgical outcomes in this patient population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePulmonary CirculationSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207