Intensive care, right ventricular support and lung transplantation in patients with pulmonary hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intensive care of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) and right-sided heart failure includes treatment of factors causing or contributing to heart failure, careful fluid management, and strategies to reduce ventricular afterload and improve cardiac function. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) should be considered in distinct situations, especially in candidates for lung transplantation (bridge to transplant) or, occasionally, in patients with a reversible cause of right-sided heart failure (bridge to recovery). ECMO should not be used in patients with end-stage disease without a realistic chance for recovery or for transplantation. For patients with refractory disease, lung transplantation remains an important treatment option. Patients should be referred to a transplant centre when they remain in an intermediate- or high-risk category despite receiving optimised pulmonary arterial hypertension therapy. Meticulous peri-operative management including the intra-operative and post-operative use of ECMO effectively prevents graft failure. In experienced centres, the 1-year survival rates after lung transplantation for PH now exceed 90%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".