Assessing Response to Therapy in Idiopathic Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Consensus Survey of Canadian Pulmonary Hypertension Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many treatment options are now available for patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH). Data regarding the optimal combination of therapies are lacking, as is consensus on how to assess response to therapy and when to change therapeutic regimens. OBJECTIVES: To gather the opinions of Canadian pulmonary hypertension (PH) experts regarding standard practice in the care of IPAH patients after therapy is initiated. METHODS: Canadian PH physicians were surveyed using short questionnaires to assess their opinions and practices in the care of IPAH patients. A Delphi forecasting approach was used to gain consensus among Canadian physicians on the most important clinical parameters to consider when assessing patients after the initiation of therapy. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 37 Canadian PH experts who were invited to participate completed the study. All endorsed the use of combination therapy for IPAH patients despite the lack of universal provincial coverage for this approach. By consensus, WHO functional class, 6 min walk distance and hospitalization for right heart failure were the most important clinical parameters. The most highly rated physical examination parameters were jugular venous pressure, peripheral edema, the presence of ascites and body weight. CONCLUSIONS: The overall approach to care of IPAH patients is similar across PH centres in Canada. A limited number of clinical and physical examination parameters were considered to be most important to reassess patients after therapy is initiated. These parameters, along with definition of threshold values, will facilitate the development of standard practice guidelines for IPAH patients in Canada.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".