Patchy Vasoconstriction Versus Inflammation: A Debate in the Pathogenesis of High Altitude Pulmonary Edema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) occurs in individuals rapidly ascending at altitudes greater than 2,500 m within one week of arrival. HAPE is characterized by orthopnea, breathlessness at rest, cough, and pink frothy sputum. Several mechanisms to describe the pathophysiology of HAPE have been proposed in different kinds of literature where most of the mechanisms are reported to be activated before a drop in oxygen saturation levels. The majority of the current studies favor diffuse hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction (HPV) as a pathophysiological basis for HAPE. However, some of the studies described inflammation in the lungs and genetic basis as the pathophysiology of HAPE. So, there is a major disagreement regarding the exact pathophysiology of HAPE in the current literature, which raises a question as to what is the exact pathophysiology of HAPE. So, we reviewed 23 different articles which include clinical trials, review articles, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and original research published from 2010 to 2020 to find out widely accepted pathophysiology of HAPE. In our study, we found out sympathetic stimulation, reduced nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability, increased endothelin, increased pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) resulting in diffuse HPV, and reduced reabsorption of interstitial fluid to be the most important determinants for the development of HAPE. Similarly, with the evaluation of the role of inflammatory mediators like C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin (IL-6), we found out that inflammation in the lungs seems to modulate but not cause the process of development of HAPE. Genetic basis as evidenced by increased transcription of certain gene products seems to be another promising hypoxic change leading to HAPE. However, comprehensive studies are still needed to decipher the pathophysiology of HAPE in greater detail.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".