End points in pulmonary arterial hypertension: the way forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary arterial hypertension is a rare disease of poor prognosis. Despite its rarity >1,000 patients have been randomised in placebo-controlled trials using novel therapies, including prostacyclin analogues, endothelin receptor antagonists and, most recently, phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors. Nearly all of these trials have used exercise capacity, measured by the unencouraged 6-min walking distance, as the primary end point and a variety of other measurements as secondary end points. This approach has been productive, leading to the licensing of a number of effective treatments. Future clinical trials, however, will probably assess drug combinations, make comparisons between drugs and include less severely ill patients. It is, therefore, timely to examine the end points used. The authors discussed the various end points that have been used in the past and possible end points that might be used in the future. End points considered included measurements of: exercise capacity, haemodynamics, quality of life, imaging of the right heart and circulation, and chemical markers of pulmonary hypertension. Many of these show promise but will have to be used in parallel and compared with conventional end points such as the 6-min walking distance before their value can be demonstrated convincingly to the regulatory authorities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".