Echocardiography as an Outcome Measure in Scleroderma-related Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Literature Analysis by the EPOSS Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the validation status of echocardiography with continuous Doppler (echo-Doppler) as an outcome measure in pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with systemic sclerosis (PAH-SSc). METHODS: Structured literature review on full-text English articles was performed using the PubMed and Cochrane databases. Assessment of validation of echo-Doppler was based on the OMERACT filter criteria with the domains truth (face, content, construct, and criterion validity), discrimination, and feasibility. RESULTS: Out of 35 studies eligible for analysis, only 5 included well defined PAH-SSc subgroups (World Health Organization criteria). Echo was considered as having face validity based on expert opinion and high number of studies using echo for evaluation of patients with SSc. Echo was considered partially validated with respect to criterion validity based on significant correlations between echo measures and right-heart catheterization in patients with SSc at risk of PAH/PH. However, echo was found to lack specificity (lack of content validity), since measurements of echo pulmonary pressure may be influenced by left-heart disease and interstitial lung disease. Data from general populations of patients with scleroderma indicate that evaluation of pulmonary artery pressure by echo might not be available in all PAH-SSc patients because of technical factors. No studies enabling evaluation of the discriminant capacity over time and treatment of echo in PAH-SSc could be identified. CONCLUSION: Further studies are needed to fully validate echo-Doppler as an outcome measure in PAH-SSc. These studies would include cross-sectional analysis of baseline measures and longitudinal data of placebo and verum groups in randomized controlled trials of patients with PAH-SSc.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".