Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Pulmonary Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cardiopulmonary exercise testing allows the assessment of the integrative cardiopulmonary response to exercise and is a useful tool to assess the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms leading to exercise intolerance. Patients with pulmonary hypertension often face a considerable delay in diagnosis due to the rarity of the disease and nonspecific symptoms of dyspnea, fatigue, and exercise limitation. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing may be suggestive of pulmonary hypertension in patients with evidence of both circulatory impairment and ventilatory inefficiency. Other factors, such as mechanical ventilatory constraints from dynamic hyperinflation and peripheral muscle dysfunction, contribute to the profound dyspnea during exercise experienced by many patients with pulmonary hypertension. In patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, several exercise variables, such as low peak V.o2, high Vd/Vt, and high V.e/V.co2, have proven to be useful in establishing the severity of functional impairment, predicting prognosis, and assessing the efficacy of interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".