Prevalence of Pulmonary Hypertension in Systemic Sclerosis in European Caucasians and Metaanalysis of 5 Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence of different types of pulmonary hypertension (PH) and to identify patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) at highest risk in a multicenter European sample, with a metaanalysis of relevant studies. METHODS: Consecutive patients with SSc recruited at 11 French and Italian centers underwent detailed evaluations, including Doppler echocardiography, chest computed tomography, pulmonary function tests, and right-heart catheterization (RHC), to detect the presence and causes of PH. A metaanalysis was performed, including data from 4 other studies. RESULTS: Among 206 patients in whom it was suspected, PH was confirmed by RHC in 83 patients (7%). Precapillary PH was found in 64 patients (5%), of whom 42 had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and 22 had PH secondary to interstitial lung disease (ILD). RHC identified 17 patients (1%) with postcapillary PH secondary to left-heart disease. Patients with DLCO/alveolar volume < 70% were more likely to have precapillary PH (87.5% vs 42%; p < 0.0001). Precapillary and postcapillary PH were associated with advanced age (68 ± 14 vs 59 ± 12 yrs, p < 0.0001, and 74 ± 16 vs 61.5 ± 10 yrs, p < 0.0001, respectively). The metaanalysis of 3818 patients showed a prevalence of precapillary PH of 9% (95% CI 6%-12%) and identified advanced age, longer disease duration, and limited cutaneous disease subset as risk factors for this condition. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of precapillary PH in our multicenter study of SSc was 5%, and in the metaanalysis 9%. Our observations support use of RHC to confirm the presence of precapillary PH suspected by noninvasive testing. We also identified patients at high risk who should be carefully monitored.
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 | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".