Survival in rheumatoid arthritis‐associated pulmonary arterial hypertension compared with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated survival in rheumatoid arthritis-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (RA-PAH) compared with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) patients, and evaluate differences in disease severity and treatment. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of RA-PAH and IPAH at the University Health Network Pulmonary Hypertension Programme, Toronto, Canada. The primary outcome was time to all-cause mortality. We evaluated survival using Kaplan-Meier curves. Using a propensity score-matched cohort, we used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate survival. RESULTS: Screening 1385 patients identified 18 RA-PAH and 155 IPAH patients. RA-PAH patients had an older median age of onset (64.0 vs 53.7 years) and lower baseline mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) (41 vs 50 mm Hg, P = 0.02). RA-PAH patients tended to have a higher proportion of females (83% vs 70%, relative risk 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-1.57), lower proportion with baseline World Health Organization functional class III/IV (39% vs 52%), lower median baseline brain natriuretic peptide (58.4 vs 95.0 pg/mL) and longer baseline 6-min walk distance (440 vs 397 m). There were 35 deaths, 2/18 (11%) RA-PAH patients and 33/155 (21%) IPAH patients. The unadjusted 1-year survival was 93% for RA-PAH and 94% for IPAH. In the matched cohort, there were seven deaths: 2/18 (11%) RA-PAH and 5/18 (28%) IPAH patients, hazard ratio 1.53 (95% CI: 0.15-2.84). Separation of survival curves did not achieve statistical significance, log-rank 0.56. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with IPAH patients, RA-PAH patients have an older age of onset and lower baseline mPAP. RA-PAH patients have comparable survival to IPAH patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".