MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980818478 · doi:10.1183/16000617.0065-2019

Pulmonary hypertension and chronic lung disease: where are we headed?

2019· review· en· W2980818478 on OpenAlexaff
Davide Elia, Antonella Caminati, Maurizio Zompatori, Roberto Cassandro, Chiara Lonati, Francesca Luisi, Giuseppe Pelosi, Steeve Provencher, Sergio Harari

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Review · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPulmonary hypertensionLungIntensive care medicinePathologicalDiseaseIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisClinical trialIncidence (geometry)Pulmonary fibrosisLung diseasePulmonary diseaseInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary hypertension related to chronic lung disease, mainly represented by COPD and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, is associated with a worse outcome when compared with patients only affected by parenchymal lung disease. At present, no therapies are available to reverse or slow down the pathological process of this condition and most of the clinical trials conducted to date have had no clinically significant impact. Nevertheless, the importance of chronic lung diseases is always more widely recognised and, along with its increasing incidence, associated pulmonary hypertension is also expected to be growing in frequency and as a health burden worldwide. Therefore, it is desirable to develop useful and reliable tools to obtain an early diagnosis and to monitor and follow-up this condition, while new insights in the therapeutic approach are explored.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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