MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099003712 · doi:10.1165/rcmb.2010-0365tr

Pulmonary Hypertension and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

2010· review· en· W2099003712 on OpenAlexaff
László Farkas, Jack Gauldie, Norbert F. Voelkel, Martin Kolb

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary hypertensionMedicinePulmonary fibrosisIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisCardiologyInternal medicineFibrosisLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a disabling disease of the lung parenchyma, characterized by progressive accumulation of scar tissue and myofibroblast activation after repetitive epithelial microinjury. The therapeutic options are limited, and patients usually die within a few years after diagnosis. Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in IPF has been increasingly recognized as a condition with relevance for the overall prognosis. Treatment trials are being designed, but to be effective, it is crucial to better understand the pathobiology of PH in IPF: the traditional concept, that hypoxic vasoconstriction and accumulation of scar tissue are mainly responsible for the development of PH in IPF, has been challenged. Recent studies, including our own in vivo research, suggest that the underlying pathobiology is much more complex, and includes a complicated interaction of epithelial cells, fibroblasts, and vascular cells. This interaction seems to be regulated by a large variety of angiogenesis promoters and inhibitors, as well as growth factors. Central components seem to be endothelial apoptosis and growth factor-induced remodeling of the pulmonary artery wall. The present review gives a conceptual overview about known and putative mechanisms that are involved in the development of PH in IPF. This report summarizes currently available therapeutic options, and also translates experimental research to discuss potential novel biomarkers and therapeutic strategies derived from new concepts in pathogenesis.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations248
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular BiologySame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207