MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138954854 · doi:10.1183/09031936.00177514

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: do we need a new definition?

2014· letter· en· W2138954854 on OpenAlexaff
Marc de Perrot, Eckhard Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary hypertensionCardiologyChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionInternal medicineHemodynamicsThrombusPulmonary arteryPulmonary thromboendarterectomyVascular resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is the end result of persistent obstruction of the pulmonary arteries following episodes of acute and/or recurrent pulmonary emboli [1]. Pulmonary hypertension probably stems from a smaller pulmonary arterial cross sectional area due to thrombus organisation and a redistribution of blood flow through the patent pulmonary arterial bed producing an additional microvasculopathy [2]. Consequently many patients develop pulmonary hypertension despite adequate anticoagulation [3]. Once pulmonary hypertension occurs, the prognosis is poor due to right heart failure with a survival similar to other forms of pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension [4]. Patients suffering from CTEPH typically present with progressive dyspnoea that worsens over a period of months to years [5]. Dyspnoea is related to hypoxaemia, dead space ventilation and right heart dysfunction, severely affecting the quality of life [6, 7]. Pulmonary endarterectomy is the treatment of choice for CTEPH. The surgery leads to major clinical improvement due to improved haemodynamic parameters and oxygenation, and a reduction in dead space ventilation [7, 8]. The surgery is curative in a large proportion of patients with resolution of the pulmonary hypertension. Over the past 20 years, the technique of pulmonary endarterectomy under deep hypothermic circulatory arrest has been refined and can currently be performed …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.019
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0180.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207