Diagnostic Evaluation and Management of Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism is a common condition. Some patients subsequently develop chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Many care gaps exist in the diagnosis and management of CTEPH patients including lack of awareness, incomplete diagnostic assessment, and inconsistent use of surgical and medical therapies. METHODS: A representative interdisciplinary panel of medical experts undertook a formal clinical practice guideline development process. A total of 20 key clinical issues were defined according to the patient population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) approach. The panel performed an evidence-based, systematic, literature review, assessed and graded the relevant evidence, and made 26 recommendations. RESULTS: Asymptomatic patients postpulmonary embolism should not be screened for CTEPH. In patients with pulmonary hypertension, the possibility of CTEPH should be routinely evaluated with initial ventilation/perfusion lung scanning, not computed tomography angiography. Pulmonary endarterectomy surgery is the treatment of choice in patients with surgically accessible CTEPH, and may also be effective in CTEPH patients with disease in more 'distal' pulmonary arteries. The anatomical extent of CTEPH for surgical pulmonary endarterectomy is best assessed by contrast pulmonary angiography, although positive computed tomography angiography may be acceptable. Novel medications indicated for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension may be effective for selected CTEPH patients. CONCLUSIONS: The present guideline requires formal dissemination to relevant target user groups, the development of tools for implementation into routine clinical practice and formal evaluation of the impact of the guideline on the quality of care of CTEPH patients. Moreover, the guideline will be updated periodically to reflect new evidence or clinical approaches.
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 | 0.023 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".