Acute vasoreactivity testing in pediatric idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension: an international survey on current practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine practice patterns and inter‐institutional variability in how acute vasoreactivity testing (AVT) is performed and interpreted in pediatrics throughout the world. A survey was offered to physicians affiliated with the Pediatric & Congenital Heart Disease Taskforce of the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute (PVRI), the Pediatric Pulmonary Hypertension Network (PPHNET), or the Spanish Registry for Pediatric Pulmonary Hypertension (REHIPED), from February to December 2016. The survey requested data about the site‐specific protocol for AVT and subsequent management of pediatric patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) or heritable PAH (HPAH). Twenty‐eight centers from 13 countries answered the survey. AVT is performed in most centers using inhaled nitric oxide (iNO). Sitbon criteria was used in 39% of the centers, Barst criteria in 43%, and other criteria in 18%. First‐line therapy for positive AVT responders in functional class (FC) I/II was calcium channel blocker (CCB) in 89%, but only in 68% as monotherapy. Most centers (71%) re‐evaluated AVT‐positive patients hemodynamics after 6–12 months; 29% of centers re‐evaluated based only on clinical criteria. Most centers (64%) considered a good response as remaining in FC I or II, with near normalization of pulmonary arterial pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance, but a stable FC I/II alone was sufficient criteria in 25% of sites. Protocols and diagnostic criteria for AVT, and therapeutic approaches during follow‐up, were highly variable across the world. Reported clinical practice is not fully congruent with current guidelines, suggesting the need for additional studies that better define the prognostic value of AVT for pediatric IPAH patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".