Pulmonary arterial hypertension-related morbidity is prognostic for survival: Insights from the SERAPHIN and GRIPHON studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical and registry data suggest that pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) progression is indicative of poor prognosis. The prognostic relevance of PAH-related morbidity was evaluated based on observations from randomised controlled trials, SERAPHIN (N = 742) and GRIPHON (N = 1156). Both studies were double-blind, long-term, event-driven Phase III trials. In both, the primary endpoint was a composite of morbidity/mortality, prospectively defined and independently adjudicated. At three landmark time points, Months 3, 6 and 12, the risk of all-cause death until end of study was assessed according to whether patients had experienced a primary endpoint morbidity event up to the landmark. At Month 3, 720 SERAPHIN patients were at risk of death. Of those, 38 had experienced a morbidity event up to Month 3. Within the median follow-up period of 27 months, patients had > 3-fold increased risk of death compared with the 682 patients who had not experienced a morbidity event up to Month 3 (hazard ratio [HR] 3.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.94, 5.92]). Similar observations were made in the GRIPHON population: 1127 patients were at risk of death at Month 3; 62 patients had experienced a morbidity event up to Month 3 and had > 4-fold increased risk of death within the next 20 months (median follow up) compared with the 1065 patients who had not (HR 4.48 [95% CI 2.98, 6.73]). In both studies, analyses at Months 6 and 12 yielded similar findings. These results confirm the prognostic relevance of PAH-related morbidity and the importance of its prevention in patients with PAH.
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 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".