Pulmonale Hypertonie bei Linksherzerkrankungen: Empfehlungen der Kölner Konsensus-Konferenz 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2015 European Guidelines on Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension are also valid for Germany. While the guidelines contain detailed recommendations regarding pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), they contain only a relatively short paragraph on other, much more common forms of PH such as PH due to left heart disease. Despite the lack of data, targeted PAH treatments are increasingly being used for PH associated with left heart disease. This development is of concern because of limited ressources and the need to base treatments on scientific evidence. On the other hand, PH is a frequent problem that is highly relevant for morbidity and mortality in patients with left heart disease, representing an unmet need of targeted PH therapies. It that sense, the practical implementation of the European Guidelines in Germany requires the consideration of several specific issues and already existing novel data. This requires a detailed commentary to the guidelines, and in some aspects an update already appears necessary. In June 2016, a Consensus Conference organized by the PH working groups of the German Society of Cardiology (DGK), the German Society of Respiratory Medicine (DGP) and the German Society of Pediatric Cardiology (DGPK) was held in Cologne, Germany. This conference aimed to solve practical and controversial issues surrounding the implementation of the European Guidelines in Germany. To this end, several working groups were initiated, one of which was specifically dedicated to PH associated with left heart disease. This article summarizes the results and recommendations of this working group.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".