The importance of patient perspectives in pulmonary hypertension
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of objective measurement of cardiopulmonary status has helped us achieve better clinical outcomes for patients and develop new therapies through to the point of market access; however, patient surveys indicate that more can be done to improve holistic care and patient engagement. In this multidisciplinary review, we examine how clinical teams can acknowledge and embrace the individual patient's perspective, and thus improve the care for individual patients suffering from pulmonary hypertension by cultivating the importance and relevance of health-related quality of life in direct clinical care. At the individual level, patients should be provided with access to accredited specialist centres which provide a multidisciplinary approach where there is a culture focused on narrative medicine, quality of life, shared decision making and timely access to palliative care, and where there is participation in education. On a larger scale, we call for the development, expansion and promotion of patient associations to support patients and carers, lobby for access to best care and treatments, and provide input into the development of clinical trials and registries, focusing on the patients' perspective.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it