Association between six-minute walk distance and long-term outcomes in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: Data from the randomized SERAPHIN trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension who achieve a six-minute walk distance of 380-440 m may have improved prognosis. Using the randomized controlled trial of macitentan in pulmonary arterial hypertension (SERAPHIN), the association between six-minute walk distance and long-term outcomes was explored. METHODS: Patients with six-minute walk distance data at Month 6 were dichotomized as above or below the median six-minute walk distance (400 m) and assessed for future risk of pulmonary arterial hypertension-related death or hospitalization and all-cause death. Additionally, six-minute walk distance values at baseline, Month 6 and the change from baseline to Month 6 were categorized by quartiles. All associations were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method using a log-rank test and Cox regression models. RESULTS: Patients with a six-minute walk distance >400 m vs. ≤400 m at Month 6 have a reduced risk of pulmonary arterial hypertension-related death or hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.48; 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.69). The risk was also lower for patients with higher quartiles of six-minute walk distance at baseline or Month 6 (baseline: hazard ratio [Q4 (>430 m) vs. Q1 (≤300 m)] 0.23; 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.36; Month 6: hazard ratio [Q4 (>455 m) vs. Q1 (≤348 m)] 0.33; 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.55). In contrast, six-minute walk distance changes at Month 6 were not associated with the risk of pulmonary arterial hypertension-related death or hospitalization (p = 0.477). These findings were consistent when adjusted for known confounders. Similar results were observed for the risk of all-cause death up to end of study. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension walking >400 m had better long-term prognosis. Although changes in six-minute walk distance were not associated with long-term outcomes, assessing absolute six-minute walk distance values remains important in the clinical management of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".