What's next after the clot? Residual pulmonary vascular obstruction after pulmonary embolism: From imaging finding to clinical consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surviving an embolism exposes patients to potential long-term complications, such as altered quality of life, persistent dyspnea, impaired exercise capacity or pulmonary hypertension. The common objective factor in most of these situations is the presence of residual pulmonary vascular obstruction (RPVO). Planar ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy (V/Q lung scan) is the gold standard for assessing RPVO, which occurs in 46 to 66% of patients at 3 months and persists in 25 to 29% of patients a year after acute PE. Assessed early (i.e. before discharge), RPVO could predict acute PE development with a high negative predictive value. Evaluated after anticoagulation therapy, RPVO could help to manage anticoagulation treatment and predict the risk of PE recurrence and patients identified at risk of developing chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. In this comprehensive review, we provide an overview of the current knowledge of RPVO after PE from imaging diagnosis to clinical consequences. In the first part, we mainly focus on the imaging modalities capable of detecting and quantifying RPVO. We then focus on the symptoms and syndromes linked with this residual obstruction after PE. Although the occurrence of RPVO and long-term complications varies greatly from one patient to another, we finally aim to identify the patients and diseases at risk of developing residual obstruction.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".