Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Thoracic Society Position Statement on Pulmonary Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The landscape of pulmonary hypertension (PH) has changed significantly since the last Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Thoracic Society position statement in 2005.Since then, advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of PH and improvements in diagnostic and therapeutic options have transformed the care of patients with PH.Globally, PH has an estimated prevalence of 1%, increasing to 10% in those aged 65 years and older, most commonly due to left heart or lung disease.Although pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is less common, the morbidity and mortality is significant and early diagnosis and treatment are essential.This document is targeted at clinicians and describes a framework for screening and diagnosis of PH, with recommendations for performance and interpretation of echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and right heart catheterization.In addition, the current approach to R ESUM ELe paysage de l'hypertension pulmonaire (HP) a beaucoup chang e depuis que la Soci et e canadienne de cardiologie et la Soci et e canadienne de thoracologie ont emis leur dernier enonc e de position à ce sujet en 2005.L' evolution des connaissances de la physiopathologie de l'HP et les am eliorations des options diagnostiques et th erapeutiques ont transform e les soins prodigu es aux patients atteints d'HP.Selon les estimations, l'HP a une pr evalence de 1 % dans le monde, pr evalence qui atteint 10 % chez les personnes de 65 ans ou plus, et elle est le plus souvent attribuable à une cardiopathie gauche ou à une atteinte pulmonaire.Bien que l'hypertension art erielle pulmonaire (HAP) soit plus rare, la morbidit e et la mortalit e qui y sont associ ees demeurent importantes, et un diagnostic et un traitement pr ecoces sont cruciaux.Les auteurs de cet article d ecrivent, à l'intention des cliniciens, un cadre pour le d epistage et le diagnostic de l'HP etThe landscape of pulmonary hypertension (PH) has changed significantly since the last Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS)/Canadian Thoracic Society position statement in 2005.Globally, PH has an estimated prevalence of 1%, increasing to 10% in those aged 65 years and older, most commonly due to left heart or lung disease. 2 Consequently, the phenotype of PH patients has changed, now being older with multiple comorbidities.A PH diagnosis confers a sevenfold increase in standardized mortality rates, irrespective of the classification.1 PH can be categorized into 5 groups: group I pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), group II PH due to left heart disease, group III PH due to lung disease/hypoxia, group IV chronic thromboembolic PH (CTEPH), and group V PH associated with unclear or multifactorial mechanisms (Table 1). 3 PAH is
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.024 |
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".