Pros and Cons of Echocardiography in the Screening, Diagnosis and Follow-up of Patients with Systemic Sclerosis Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension – a Rheumatologist's Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Our objective was to review the evidence regarding echocardiography in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and possible pulmonary hypertension (PH). Methods The literature was reviewed. In addition, a survey was conducted of 315 rheumatologists/internists with a self-declared interest in SSc, to determine their preferred use of echocardiograms. Results The most relevant literature findings come from two studies, the DETECT study and one from the Australian Scleroderma Interest Group. In both these studies, it appears that the use of non-echocardiographic variables such as pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and values of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), are adequate on their own in suggesting which patients are at high risk of PH. Echocardiograms added very little information and in fact may confuse the picture by appearing to be normal when in fact underlying PH is present. With regard to the survey, 157 physicians (49.8%) responded. Of those, 67% felt that an echocardiogram should be ordered on every patient with SSc every year. Ninety-five percent (95%) said the reason was to screen for the development of significant PH, 65% said the reason was to screen for the development of significant intrinsic cardiac disease and 38% said that the reason was to adhere to accepted international recommendations. Conclusions Despite popular belief and current recommendations, in the opinion of the author, echocardiograms are not necessary in every SSc patient every year. Cheaper tests such as PFTs and NT-proBNP are adequate in most cases to suggest when a right heart catheterization should be performed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it