Evaluation of the Impact of an Echocardiographic Diagnosis of Pulmonary Hypertension on Patient Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although detection of elevated right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) on routine echocardiography is common, its clinical significance is underappreciated. The recent change in the hemodynamic definition of pulmonary hypertension (PH) lowering the threshold from mean pulmonary arterial pressure ≥ 25 mm Hg to > 20 mm Hg further clouds the picture. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed on residents of the South East Local Health Integration Network (population 495,000), Ontario, Canada, who underwent transthoracic echocardiography at the Kingston Health Sciences Centre between February 19, 2013, and December 31, 2016. The index echocardiography from 9291 unique patients was obtained. Results A total of 2049 patients (22.1%) had an RVSP ≥ 40 mm Hg, 2040 patients (22.0%) had an RVSP ≥ 30 and < 40 mm Hg, but only 284 patients (3.1%) had a clinical diagnosis of PH. Although patients with an RVSP ≥ 40 mm Hg had the highest Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (1.81 ± 0.05) and number of hospitalizations 1 year before the echocardiography (1.24 ± 0.03), patients with RVSP between 30 and 40 mm Hg also had significantly higher CCI (1.19 ± 0.04) and hospitalization (0.87 ± 0.03) compared with the CCI (0.84 ± 0.03) and hospitalization (0.65 ± 0.02) of patients with RVSP < 30 mm Hg ( P < 0.0001). Conclusion Despite the finding that an elevated RVSP ≥ 30 mm Hg is common and predicts adverse outcomes, most patients with elevated RVSP are not reported as having PH or investigated. The significance of the elevated RVSP is underappreciated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".