Imaging of pulmonary hypertension in adults: a position paper from the Fleischner Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is defined by a mean pulmonary artery pressure greater than 20 mmHg and classified into five different groups sharing similar pathophysiologic mechanisms, haemodynamic characteristics, and therapeutic management. Radiologists play a key role in the multidisciplinary assessment and management of PH. A working group was formed from within the Fleischner Society based on expertise in the imaging and/or management of patients with PH, as well as experience with methodologies of systematic reviews. The working group identified key questions focusing on the utility of CT, MRI, and nuclear medicine in the evaluation of PH: a) Is noninvasive imaging capable of identifying PH? b) What is the role of imaging in establishing the cause of PH? c) How does imaging determine the severity and complications of PH? d) How should imaging be used to assess chronic thromboembolic PH before treatment? e) Should imaging be performed after treatment of PH? This systematic review and position paper highlights the key role of imaging in the recognition, work-up, treatment planning, and follow-up of PH.
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 | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".