Bibliographic record
Abstract
This first-quarter 2008 issue marks the first time Advances in Pulmonary Hypertension will be offering continuing medical education (CME) credit. We are pleased to make this service available through the University of Michigan Medical School. Upon completing the questions related to each topic, readers will be able to claim up to 2.0 hours of CME credit while learning the latest about pulmonary hypertension. This issue also kicks off our new International Corner, with an initial commentary by Adam Torbicki, MD, PhD, of Warsaw, Poland. His thoughts on the fourth-quarter 2007 issue are provided in English and Polish.It is hoped that these exciting additions will help further the study of pulmonary hypertension across the globe. Working toward this goal, I hope you will join me at PHA's Eighth International PH Conference and Scientific Sessions this June in Houston, Texas. With more than 60 scientific and clinical posters, four presentations by distinguished investigators, and sessions for patients and family members, this Conference is unique and not to be missed.James Maloney, MD, the lead Guest Editor for this issue, with the assistance of Todd Bull, MD, superbly edited the leading-edge content covering medical management, clinical trials, and combination therapies. The first article by Jeremiah Depta, MD, and Richard Krasuski, MD, reviews the recently updated American College of Chest Physicians guidelines on medical management of pulmonary arterial hypertension. The article by Zeenat Safdar, MD, covers ongoing phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials that are likely to be completed soon and will potentially provide evidence for new treatment options. Ioana R. Preston, MD, a member of the Advances in Pulmonary Hypertension Editorial Board, covers the ever-changing and often contested spectrum of combination drug therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension. This paper is a comprehensive summary of available and emerging evidence, mostly in support of using at least two different PAH drugs for additive and perhaps synergistic effects on the pulmonary circulation.Finally, a Roundtable Discussion led by Karen Fagan, MD, covers an increasingly important consideration, namely, the use of pulmonary arterial hypertension therapy in a broader group of patients than have been studied to date. This has important implications for the patients in question, and also for future patient groups to be targeted for treatment with PAH-specific drugs. Panel members included Kamal K. Mubarak, MD, Zeenat Safdar, MD, Aaron Waxman, MD, PhD, and Roham T. Zamanian, MD.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.819 | 0.657 |
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".