MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151624219 · doi:10.1183/09031936.00078207

Endothelin receptor antagonists in pulmonary arterial hypertension

2008· review· en· W2151624219 on OpenAlex
Jocelyn Dupuis, Marius M. Hoeper

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndothelin receptorPulmonary hypertensionCardiologyInternal medicineEndothelin receptor antagonistPharmacologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The endothelin (ET) system, especially ET-1 and the ET(A) and ET(B) receptors, has been implicated in the pathogenesis of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Together with prostanoids and phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors, ET receptor antagonists have become mainstays in the current treatment of PAH. Three substances are currently available for the treatment of PAH. One of these substances, bosentan, blocks both ET(A) and ET(B) receptors, whereas the two other compounds, sitaxsentan and ambrisentan, are more selective blockers of the ET(A) receptor. There is ongoing debate as to whether selective or nonselective ET receptor blockade is advantageous in the setting of PAH, although there is no clear evidence that receptor selectivity is relevant with regard to the clinical effects of these drugs. For the time being, other features, such as safety profiles and the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs used in the treatment of PAH, may be more important than selectivity or nonselectivity when selecting treatments for individual 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.240 · 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