MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414176242 · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.05.024

Riociguat: Mode of Action and Clinical Development in Pulmonary Hypertension

2016· review· en· W2414176242 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Humbert, David Langleben, Ralph T. Schermuly, Johannes‐Peter Stasch, Martin R. Wilkins, James R. Klinger

Bibliographic record

VenueCHEST Journal · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of HealthBayer HealthCarePfizerIkariaNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteGilead SciencesUnited Therapeutics Corporation
KeywordsRiociguatPulmonary hypertensionChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) are progressive and debilitating diseases characterized by gradual obstruction of the pulmonary vasculature, leading to elevated pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and increased pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). If untreated, they can result in death due to right-sided heart failure. Riociguat is a novel soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulator that is approved for the treatment of PAH and CTEPH. We describe in detail the role of the nitric oxide-sGC-cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) signaling pathway in the pathogenesis of PAH and CTEPH and the mode of action of riociguat. We also review the preclinical data associated with the development of riociguat, along with the efficacy and safety data of riociguat from initial clinical trials and pivotal phase III randomized clinical trials in PAH and CTEPH.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations100
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCHEST JournalSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207