Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing with Right-heart Catheterization in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing with right-heart catheterization (CPET/RHC) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) with potentially multifactorial exertional limitation. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with SSc referred for CPET/RHC. RESULTS: A total of 19 patients with SSc [subtypes: 10 limited, 5 diffuse, 1 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)/SSc overlap, and 3 with no subtype specified in the medical record] underwent CPET/RHC testing from February 2003 to February 2008. Of these patients, the primary limitations to exercise were found to be ventilatory (n = 6), deconditioning/cardiovascular (n = 6), pulmonary vascular (PVL; n = 3), and exercise-induced left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (exercise-LVDD; n = 4). No prior physical examination, pulmonary function test, imaging, or echocardiographic data reliably predicted the etiology of exercise limitation determined by CPET/RHC. Vital capacity and ventilatory equivalent for CO(2) did not differ during CPET testing between PVL and exercise-LVDD, limiting the utility of CPET alone for discriminating these etiologies of dyspnea. Exercise alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient was elevated in subjects shown to have PVL [median 48 mm Hg (interquartile range 45.3, 62.0)] compared to those with exercise-LVDD [26.0 (IQR 10.6, 36.0)] and deconditioning [13.9 (IQR 4.0, 16.4); p = 0.02]. Major therapeutic changes occurred in 11/19 (58%) subjects after CPET/RHC testing. CONCLUSION: CPET/RHC testing in subjects with SSc and potentially multifactorial dyspnea adds potentially useful diagnostic information unavailable from noninvasive testing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".