Hot topics in the mechanisms of pulmonary arterial hypertension disease: cancer‐like pathobiology, the role of the adventitia, systemic involvement, and right ventricular failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to intervene appropriately and develop disease-modifying therapeutics for pulmonary arterial hypertension, it is crucial to understand the mechanisms of disease pathogenesis and progression. We herein discuss four topics of disease mechanisms that are currently highly debated, yet still unsolved, in the field of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Is pulmonary arterial hypertension a cancer-like disease? Does the adventitia play an important role in the initiation of pulmonary vascular remodeling? Is pulmonary arterial hypertension a systemic disease? Does capillary loss drive right ventricular failure? While pulmonary arterial hypertension does not replicate all features of cancer, anti-proliferative cancer therapeutics might still be beneficial in pulmonary arterial hypertension if monitored for safety and tolerability. It was recognized that the adventitia as a cell-rich compartment is important in the disease pathogenesis of pulmonary arterial hypertension and should be a therapeutic target, albeit the data are inconclusive as to whether the adventitia is involved in the initiation of neointima formation. There was agreement that systemic diseases can lead to pulmonary arterial hypertension and that pulmonary arterial hypertension can have systemic effects related to the advanced lung pathology, yet there was less agreement on whether idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension is a systemic disease per se. Despite acknowledging the limitations of exactly assessing vascular density in the right ventricle, it was recognized that the failing right ventricle may show inadequate vascular adaptation resulting in inadequate delivery of oxygen and other metabolites. Although the debate was not meant to result in a definite resolution of the specific arguments, it sparked ideas about how we might resolve the discrepancies by improving our disease modeling (rodent models, large-animal studies, studies of human cells, tissues, and organs) as well as standardization of the models. Novel experimental approaches, such as lineage tracing and better three-dimensional imaging of experimental as well as human lung and heart tissues, might unravel how different cells contribute to the disease pathology.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".