MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P2612Determinants of diagnostic delay in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: results from the international prospective cteph registry

2018· article· en· W2889206155 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frederikus A. Klok, Stefano Barco, Stavros Konstantinides, Marion Delcroix, Iréne Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionPulmonary hypertensionCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The median diagnostic delay (DD) of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) has been reported to be as long as 14 months. The determinants and consequences of this delay have not been fully elucidated. Methods: The present analysis of the International CTEPH registry included 679 patients with CTEPH from Europe and Canada. First, we compared patient- vs physician-related DD. Subsequently, we performed univariate and multivariable regression analyses to study i) predictors of DD, and ii) the association between DD and clinical presentation or outcomes. We predefined to compare patients with the longest DD (highest tertile, >24.5 months) to those with shorter delay periods (lowest and middle tertile, ≤24.5 months). Results: In 637 patients, in whom the time of onset of CTEPH symptoms could be determined, stepwise multivariable analysis identified obesity (adjusted OR [aOR] per increase of DD by one tertile 1.5; 95% CI 1.01–2.2), chest pain (aOR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44–0.97) or fatigue (aOR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53–0.97) as the presenting symptom, and recurrent VTE (aOR 1.8; 95% CI 1.3–2.7), but not age or sex, as predictors of DD. Of note, formal adjudication of “recurrent VTE” was not required in the CTEPH registry, which may have led to recall bias and overestimation of its prevalence. Patients with the longest DD had higher mean pulmonary artery pressures at diagnosis (50±12 [III tertile] versus 45±12 [II tertile] versus 46±12 [I tertile] mmHg; p<0.001 for overall difference, p<0.001 for III versus II tertile, p=0.001 for III versus I tertile). DD was associated with overall mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.5; 95% CI 0.99–2.2) but not with patient operability.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→