ACVIM consensus statement guidelines for the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and monitoring of pulmonary hypertension in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary hypertension (PH), defined by increased pressure within the pulmonary vasculature, is a hemodynamic and pathophysiologic state present in a wide variety of cardiovascular, respiratory, and systemic diseases. The purpose of this consensus statement is to provide a multidisciplinary approach to guidelines for the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and monitoring of PH in dogs. Comprehensive evaluation including consideration of signalment, clinical signs, echocardiographic parameters, and results of other diagnostic tests supports the diagnosis of PH and allows identification of associated underlying conditions. Dogs with PH can be classified into the following 6 groups: group 1, pulmonary arterial hypertension; group 2, left heart disease; group 3, respiratory disease/hypoxia; group 4, pulmonary emboli/pulmonary thrombi/pulmonary thromboemboli; group 5, parasitic disease (Dirofilaria and Angiostrongylus); and group 6, disorders that are multifactorial or with unclear mechanisms. The approach to treatment of PH focuses on strategies to decrease the risk of progression, complications, or both, recommendations to target underlying diseases or factors contributing to PH, and PH-specific treatments. Dogs with PH should be monitored for improvement, static condition, or progression, and any identified underlying disorder should be addressed and monitored simultaneously.
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 | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".