Functional Characterization of Patients with Chronic Thromboembolic Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease (CTED) have persistent pulmonary vascular obstruction and exercise intolerance without pulmonary hypertension at rest and may benefit from pulmonary endarterectomy. However, up to now, CTED has been poorly characterized. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyze the exercise capacity and limiting factors in CTED. METHODS: We compared right heart catheterization and cardiopulmonary exercise test results of patients with CTED [mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) at rest <25 mm Hg, n = 10], chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH, n = 31) and a control group (n = 41) presenting with dyspnea but normal pulmonary vascular imaging and excluded pulmonary hypertension. RESULTS: Subjects with CTED show a reduced oxygen uptake [median 76/interquartile range (IQR) 22% pred.] and work rate (median 76/IQR 21 W). The work rate was significantly lower compared to control subjects (p = 0.04) but not significantly different from CTEPH patients (p = 0.66). Oxygen pulse and breathing reserve were normal. CTED subjects showed decreased end-tidal CO2 at anaerobic threshold (28.4/4.3 mm Hg), an elevated VE/VCO2 slope (42.5/23.5), breathing equivalents (EQO2 32.0/8.7, EQCO2 39.5/8.8), alveolar-capillary oxygen gradient (34.7/15.5 mm Hg) and capillary end-tidal carbon dioxide gradient (8.8/5.7 mm Hg) compared to control subjects (p < 0.001). The degree of limitation was similar to that in CTEPH. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an mPAP of <25 mm Hg, subjects with CTED show objective functional impairment and similar limitations to patients with CTEPH. Functional limitation is characterized by gas exchange disturbance and ineffective ventilation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".