Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Specific Therapy in Patients with Combined Post- and Precapillary Pulmonary Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Specific therapy for patients with PAH is associated with good outcomes. Little is known about the effect of this treatment in patients with Cpc-PH (PAPm ≥ 25 mmHg, PAWP > 15 mmHg, DPG ≥ 7 mmHg, and/or PVR > 3 WU). This study evaluates the outcome of treating patients with Cpc-PH using PAH specific therapy. Methods. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary outcomes were WHO functional class and 6-minute walk distance (6-MWD). Results. Twenty-six patients with Cpc-PH (half with VHD and half with HF) received PAHST. Six patients did not tolerate treatment due to pulmonary edema. No predictors for treatment intolerance were identified. In twenty patients who tolerated the treatment, the mean WHO functional class improved from 2.70±0.21 at initial assessment to 2.22±0.21 ( p<0.04 ) and 2.06±0.21 ( p<0.03 ) at 6 and 9 months, respectively. Mean 6-MWD improved from 276.0±38.50 meters at initial assessment to 343.9±22.99 meters ( p<0.04 ) and 364.6±34.85 meters ( p=0.07 ) at 6 and 9 months, respectively. Twelve patients died during the follow-up period. Mean survival for all patients was 1279.7±193.60 days. Conclusion. PAHST may be beneficial in the treatment of Cpc-PH (both short and long term). Prospective randomized controlled trials of PAHST in this population are needed to assess its potential efficacy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".