Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past decades have witnessed an increasing interest in the field of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The large number of publications related to PAH reflects this interest. As a result, in contrast to 15 yrs ago, there are now at least seven different drugs as specific therapy targeting the pulmonary circulation that are approved for use in the USA and European Union, with some of them also approved for use in Canada, Japan, Australia and in some countries in Latin America. These medications have proved to increase exercise capacity [1–5], haemodynamics [2, 3, 6], quality of life [7–9] and even survival [5]. Nevertheless, there is still room for further improvements, since the mortality rate remains significantly high [10, 11]. Haemodynamically, PAH is characterised by progressive increase in pulmonary vascular resistance, as a consequence of vascular remodelling within the pre-capillary territory, leading to right ventricular failure and, eventually, death [12]; numerically, this is translated to the presence of a mean pulmonary artery pressure >25 mmHg, with normal pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (<15 mmHg) [13]. This definition, although extremely important for the proper characterisation of a pre-capillary impairment, might be misleading when focusing on specific patients or, more properly, specific forms of PAH. The most recent published nomenclature for pulmonary hypertension date from 2003 [13], and despite the fact that it has been recently revised (at the International Symposium of Pulmonary Hypertension, held in Dana Point, CA, USA, in the first quarter of 2008) it still includes in group 1 (PAH) several diseases that share the haemodynamic profile of pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension but present a completely distinct clinical course, such as idiopathic PAH, scleroderma-associated PAH and portopulmonary hypertension [10, 14, …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".