Predictors of residual pulmonary vascular obstruction after pulmonary embolism: Results from a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the prevalence of residual pulmonary vascular obstruction (RPVO) after symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and to identify risk factors for RPVO. METHODS: On the basis of a prospective cohort of patients with a documented symptomatic venous thromboembolism, we included patients who had an acute PE and underwent a ventilation/perfusion lung scan at 3 to 24 months during the follow-up after PE. RPVO score was assessed for each patient. Initial pulmonary vascular obstruction at PE diagnosis was also assessed when available. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed with preselected data to identify predictors for persistent defect defined as RPVO ≥ 5%. RESULTS: Among the 537 included patients, 278 (51.8%) had RPVO ≥ 5%, and 191 (35.6%) had RPVO ≥ 10%. In primary multivariate analysis on overall population, age ≥ 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.25, 95% CI, 1.45-3.52) and chronic respiratory failure (OR 3.19, 95% CI, 1.22-10.04) were independent predictors of RPVO ≥ 5%. In secondary multivariate analysis restricted to 256 patients with available initial pulmonary vascular obstruction score at index PE (IPVO), age ≥ 65 years (OR 2.78, 95% CI, 1.41-5.53), unprovoked PE (OR 2.11, 95% CI, 1.11-4.07) and IPVO ≥ 20% (OR 2.94, 95% CI, 1.68-5.20) were found to be independent risk factors for RVPO ≥5%. CONCLUSION: In this selected population of patients with an acute PE, age ≥ 65 years, unprovoked PE and IPVO ≥ 20% at PE diagnosis appeared to be risk factors for residual pulmonary vascular obstruction measured at three to 24 months.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".