MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107245515 · doi:10.1111/jocs.12646

Operative and Functional Outcome After Pulmonary Endarterectomy for Advanced Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension

2015· article· en· W2107245515 on OpenAlexaff
Stephane Leung Wai Sang, Jean‐François Morin, Andrew Hirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiac Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary hypertensionPulmonary arteryVascular resistanceHemodynamicsCardiologyChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionSurgeryPulmonary thromboendarterectomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To evaluate the midterm hemodynamic and functional outcome of pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) for patients with advanced chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). METHODS: Thirty-eight consecutive patients underwent PEA for CTEPH from May 2004 to March 2012. All patients were followed prospectively at six months postoperatively and annually thereafter. Each patient underwent serial cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and transthoracic echocardiography, and were followed for up to four years. RESULTS: Overall, 31.5% (12/38) of patients had Jamieson class II disease while 65.8% (25/38) had class III disease. There were three in-hospital mortalities (7.9%), all of which had baseline pulmonary vasculature resistance (PVR) greater than 1400 dynes-sec-cm(-5) . Preoperative PVR and mean pulmonary artery pressure were 1209 ± 723 dynes-sec-cm(-5) and 50 ± 14 mmHg, respectively, signifying a high-risk operative group. Ninety-seven percent of patients were in NYHA class III or IV preoperatively. At median follow-up of 29 months 89.5% (17/19) of patients were in NYHA class I or II. CPET revealed a progressive increase in peak oxygen consumption from 16.5 ± 4.1 ml/kg/min at first follow-up, to a plateau of 20.2 ± 5.6 ml/kg/min (p = 0.032) at two years. CONCLUSIONS: CPET can be used to quantify progress in functional capacity post-CTEPH, although improvements in peak oxygen consumption plateau at two years.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiac SurgerySame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207