Survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a reappraisal of the NIH risk stratification equation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to determine contemporary survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), and to investigate whether or not the National Institutes of Health (NIH) equation remains an accurate predictor of survival. In 576 patients with PAH referred during 1991-2007, observed survival was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. In patients with idiopathic, familial and anorexigen-associated PAH (n = 247), observed versus NIH equation predicted survival was compared. A new survival prediction equation was developed using exponential regression analysis. The observed 1-, 3- and 5-yr survival in the total cohort were 86, 69 and 61%, respectively. In patients with idiopathic, familial and anorexigen-associated PAH, the observed 1-, 3- and 5-yr survival (92, 75 and 66%, respectively) were significantly higher than the predicted survival (65, 43 and 32%, respectively). The new equation (P(t) = e(-A(x,y,z)t), where P(t) is probability of survival, t the time interval in years, A(x,y,z) = e((-1.270-0.0148x+0.0402y-0.361z)), x the mean pulmonary artery pressure, y the mean right atrial pressure and z the cardiac index) performed well when applied to published contemporary studies of survival in PAH. Contemporary survival in the PAH cohort was better than that predicted by the NIH registry equation. The NIH equation underestimated survival in idiopathic, familial and anorexigen-associated PAH. Once prospectively validated, the new equation may be used to determine prognosis.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".