Secondary Prevention of HAPE in a Mount Everest Summiteer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climbers who have suffered a previous episode of high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) are at significantly increased risk of developing it again on return to high altitude. In spite of the high mortality associated with HAPE, some climbers are willing to take this risk in order to summit the tallest mountains in the world. This is a case report of a climber who suffered an episode of HAPE partway up Mount Everest. He was determined to complete his summit attempt that same climbing season, which would involve a return to extreme altitude less than 3 weeks following recovery. Based on experimental evidence suggesting that sildenafil, salmeterol, and acetazolamide may have therapeutic value for both the prevention and treatment of HAPE, he used these medications for secondary prevention. He was able to successfully reach the summit of Mount Everest and return to base camp without any evidence of recurrence of pulmonary edema. This provides clinical evidence that medication can be used to increase the safety margin for HAPE-susceptible individuals traveling to extremely high altitudes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".