MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904463477 · doi:10.1183/13993003.01914-2018

Pulmonary hypertension in chronic lung disease and hypoxia

2018· review· en· W2904463477 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven D. Nathan, Joan Albert Barberà, Seán Gaine, Sergio Harari, Fernando J. Martínez, Horst Olschewski, Karen M. Olsson, Andrew J. Peacock, Joanna Pepke‐Żaba, Steeve Provencher, Norbert Weißmann, Werner Seeger

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersActelion PharmaceuticalsGenentechNational Institutes of HealthSunovionGilead SciencesTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesVeracyteUnited Therapeutics CorporationBiogenBayerYork UniversityAstraZenecaAmerican Thoracic SocietyPfizerGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsPulmonary hypertensionHypoxia (environmental)MedicineLung diseaseLungIntensive care medicineVasoactiveEtiologyDiseaseRespiratory diseaseInternal medicineCardiologyOxygenChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) frequently complicates the course of patients with various forms of chronic lung disease (CLD). CLD-associated PH (CLD-PH) is invariably associated with reduced functional ability, impaired quality of life, greater oxygen requirements and an increased risk of mortality. The aetiology of CLD-PH is complex and multifactorial, with differences in the pathogenic sequelae between the diverse forms of CLD. Haemodynamic evaluation of PH severity should be contextualised within the extent of the underlying lung disease, which is best gauged through a combination of physiological and imaging assessment. Who, when, if and how to screen for PH will be addressed in this article, as will the current state of knowledge with regard to the role of treatment with pulmonary vasoactive agents. Although such therapy cannot be endorsed given the current state of findings, future studies in this area are strongly encouraged.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations761
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207