MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751927028 · doi:10.1183/16000617.0037-2017

Heritable pulmonary hypertension: from bench to bedside

2017· review· en· W2751927028 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Girerd, Jason Weatherald, David Montani, Marc Humbert

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Review · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBench to bedsidePulmonary hypertensionIntensive care medicineCardiologyMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutations in the BMPR2 gene, and more rarely in ACVRL1 , endoglin , caveolin-1 , KCNK3 and TBX4 genes predispose to heritable pulmonary arterial hypertension, an autosomal dominant disease with incomplete penetrance. Bi-allelic mutations in the EIF2AK4 gene predispose to heritable pulmonary veno-occlusive disease/pulmonary capillary haemangiomatosis, an autosomal recessive disease with an unknown penetrance. In France, the national pulmonary hypertension referral centre offers genetic counselling and testing to adults and children. Predictive testing is also proposed to adult relatives at risk of carrying a predisposing mutation. In that context, we offer all asymptomatic BMPR2 mutation carriers a programme to detect pulmonary arterial hypertension at an early phase, as recommended by the 2015 European Society Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society pulmonary hypertension guidelines. Finally, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis has been conducted on five embryos from two couples in which the fathers were carriers of a pathogenic BMPR2 mutation.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.109 · 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory ReviewSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207