MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2145270411 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.101250

Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Great Expectations!

2011· letter· en· W2145270411 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ganesh Subramanian, Sanjay Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of AlbertaLawson Health Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTreprostinilBosentanAmbrisentanSildenafilInternal medicineCardiologyTadalafilPulmonary hypertensionIloprostHeart failurePulmonary arteryVascular resistanceEndothelin receptorHemodynamicsProstacyclin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

> “Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There’s no better rule.” > > — Charles Dickens, Great Expectations Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a serious, progressive, often fatal condition characterized by increased pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR)1,2. Patients with PAH experience dyspnea and exercise limitation — and as right ventricular (RV) failure develops, edema, exertional chest pain, syncope, and increased risk of death. PAH is most commonly idiopathic (IPAH) or associated with an underlying connective tissue disease (CTD-PAH), such as scleroderma1. In both IPAH and CTD-PAH patients, median survival is less than 3 years in the absence of therapy3,4,5. Research advances in our understanding of the pathobiology of PAH have led to the study, approval, and availability of many novel PAH-specific medications. These include prostanoid analogs (i.e., intravenous epoprostenol, subcutaneous/intravenous treprostinil), endothelin receptor antagonists (i.e., ambrisentan, bosentan), and phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (i.e., sildenafil, tadalafil)2,6. What are the expectations of this array of therapies on the part of patients with PAH and their physicians? The published evidence, typically short-term, 3 to 4-month, randomized controlled trials of all these therapies, demonstrates benefit in both IPAH and CTD-PAH7. A majority of patients have small reductions in PAP and PVR, increased cardiac output, decreased symptoms, and increased exercise capacity, as measured by 6-minute walk test (6-MWT). New York Heart Association/World Health Organization (NYHA/WHO) functional class will improve in about one-third of patients, and objectively measured quality of life (QOL) may also improve2,6,7. A metaanalysis of published randomized controlled trials of PAH-specific therapies also confirmed a small, short-term survival benefit7. Thus, based on the evidence, patients with PAH and their physicians expect symptomatic benefit and improved functional capacity, important components … Address correspondence to Dr. S. Mehta, Division of Respirology, London Health Sciences Center, Victoria Hospital, Room E1.325, 800 Commissioner’s Road East, London, ON N6A 5W9, Canada. E-mail: sanjay.mehta{at}lhsc.on.ca

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.014

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→