Identifying potential parameters associated with response to switching from a PDE5i to riociguat in RESPITE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: RESPITE evaluated patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension and an inadequate response to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) who switched to riociguat. This post hoc analysis assessed response to this switch in parameters associated with clinical improvement. METHODS: RESPITE was a 24-week, uncontrolled pilot study (n = 61). Differences in functional, hemodynamic, and cardiac function parameters, REVEAL risk score (RRS), and biomarkers were compared between responders (free from clinical worsening, World Health Organization functional class I/II, and ≥30 m improvement in 6-min walking distance at Week 24) and non-responders. RESULTS: Of 51 patients (84%) completing RESPITE, 16 (31%) met the responder endpoint. At baseline, there were significant differences between responders and non-responders in N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), growth/differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), and RRS, whereas there were no differences in hemodynamics or cardiac function. At Week 24, responders had significant improvements in pulmonary arterial compliance, pulmonary vascular resistance, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure, while non-responders showed no significant change. Cardiac efficiency and stroke volume index significantly improved irrespective of responder status. CONCLUSIONS: NT-proBNP, GDF-15, and RRS were identified as potential predictors of response in patients switching from PDE5i to riociguat. Further prospective controlled studies are needed to confirm the association of these parameters with response.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".