Anticoagulation in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a qualitative systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thrombotic arteriopathy has been implicated in the pathophysiology of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). However, the role of anticoagulants in the treatment of PAH is uncertain. Through a qualitative systematic review of epidemiological studies, the effectiveness of anticoagulation therapy with warfarin on survival was evaluated in patients with PAH. MEDLINE (1966 to November 2005), EMBASE (1966 to November 2005), bibliographies of included studies and published reviews were searched without language restriction. Epidemiological studies evaluating the effectiveness of warfarin in PAH were included. Studies had to report mortality as an outcome. Seven observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of warfarin comprising 488 patients were identified. Five studies support the effectiveness of anticoagulation therapy, whereas two do not. Data from observational studies suggest that anticoagulation therapy may be an effective intervention in pulmonary arterial hypertension. However, given the methodological limitations and the small number of existing observational studies, a randomised controlled trial is needed in order to definitively address this important clinical issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".