MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152690814 · doi:10.1139/y09-113

Acute hypertensive pulmonary edema: a new paradigm

2010· review· en· W2152690814 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lincoln E. Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineEfferentCardiologyPeripheralInternal medicinePeripheral edemaBlood pressurePulmonary edemaBloodlettingStimulus (psychology)EdemaVascular toneAnesthesiaLungVasodilationPathologyAfferent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although acute hypertensive pulmonary edema is sometimes regarded as the most severe form of heart failure, at the peak of symptoms, hearts perform well above resting levels and cannot be said to be failing. Another characteristic of the condition, the rapidity of its onset and reversal when properly treated, suggests positive feedback as a causal mechanism. It is proposed that the syndrome results from a feedback loop with increased sympathetic tone as the efferent output, increased pulmonary vascular pressure as the stimulus to increased sympathetic tone, and positive feedback occurring because elevated sympathetic tone constricts systemic veins, thereby transferring blood from peripheral veins to the pulmonary vasculature. Evidence for the proposed mechanism derives from all the empirical treatments that have evolved. All remove blood from the pulmonary circuit, and all but the oldest, bloodletting, do so by transferring blood from the pulmonary circuit to the peripheral veins.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207