Pulmonary arterial hypertension screening practices in scleroderma patients among Canadian rheumatologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current international guidelines recommend annual screening for pulmonary arterial hypertension with transthoracic echocardiogram and pulmonary function testing in all patients with scleroderma (systemic sclerosis). Our objectives were to determine Canadian rheumatologists' screening practices for pulmonary arterial hypertension in patients with systemic sclerosis and identify reasons why current guideline recommendations may not be followed. Methods: A survey was emailed to all Canadian Rheumatology Association members. They self-identified as systemic sclerosis experts or non-experts and provided basic demographic data. Participants were asked how frequently they screened with transthoracic echocardiogram and pulmonary function testing and, if applicable, why they did not adhere to recommendations. Results: A total of 71 rheumatologists participated, of whom 43 identified as non-experts. Overall, 81.4% ordered annual transthoracic echocardiogram and 77.6% annual pulmonary function testing. Rates of annual transthoracic echocardiogram testing were similar between experts and non-experts, whereas experts ordered annual pulmonary function testing more often. Clinicians with a higher proportion of systemic sclerosis patients in their practice were more likely to follow guidelines. There was an inverse relationship between years in practice and adherence to screening guidelines. The most common reason for not following screening guidelines was disagreement with recommendations, followed by unfamiliarity with guidelines. Conclusions: Pulmonary arterial hypertension screening rates remain sub-optimal in Canada but have improved since 2012. Failure to adopt guidelines is due to rheumatologists disagreeing with or not knowing current recommendations. Future studies should examine why rheumatologists disagree with guidelines and how to improve awareness.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".