Assessment of Right Ventricular Function in the Research Setting: Knowledge Gaps and Pathways Forward. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular (RV) adaptation to acute and chronic pulmonary hypertensive syndromes is a significant determinant of short- and long-term outcomes. Although remarkable progress has been made in the understanding of RV function and failure since the meeting of the NIH Working Group on Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Right Heart Failure in 2005, significant gaps remain at many levels in the understanding of cellular and molecular mechanisms of RV responses to pressure and volume overload, in the validation of diagnostic modalities, and in the development of evidence-based therapies. METHODS: A multidisciplinary working group of 20 international experts from the American Thoracic Society Assemblies on Pulmonary Circulation and Critical Care, as well as external content experts, reviewed the literature, identified important knowledge gaps, and provided recommendations. RESULTS: This document reviews the knowledge in the field of RV failure, identifies and prioritizes the most pertinent research gaps, and provides a prioritized pathway for addressing these preclinical and clinical questions. The group identified knowledge gaps and research opportunities in three major topic areas: 1) optimizing the methodology to assess RV function in acute and chronic conditions in preclinical models, human studies, and clinical trials; 2) analyzing advanced RV hemodynamic parameters at rest and in response to exercise; and 3) deciphering the underlying molecular and pathogenic mechanisms of RV function and failure in diverse pulmonary hypertension syndromes. CONCLUSIONS: This statement provides a roadmap to further advance the state of knowledge, with the ultimate goal of developing RV-targeted therapies for patients with RV failure of any etiology.
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 | 0.127 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
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".