Impact of the new definition for pulmonary hypertension in patients with lung disease: an analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implications of the recent change in the definition of pulmonary hypertension on epidemiology and outcomes are not known. We sought to determine the percentage of patients with the two most common lung diseases that would be reclassified regarding the presence/absence of pulmonary hypertension with the revised definition. A query of the United Network for Organ Sharing database was performed. The percentage of patients meeting the current and previous definition of pulmonary hypertension was described. Outcomes of patients stratified by the current and previous definitions were compared. There were 15,563 patients with right heart catheterization data analyzed. Pulmonary hypertension was more prevalent in both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis under the new definition at 52.4% versus 82.4%, and 47.6% versus 73.6%, respectively. "Pre-capillary" pulmonary hypertension by the new definition was lower at 28.1% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 36.8% for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Of the patients with pulmonary hypertension by the old definition, 23.9% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients and 18.7% of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients were not classified as pulmonary hypertension by the new definition. Conversely, 15.9% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients and 15.1% of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients who did not meet diagnostic criteria for pulmonary hypertension by the old definition did have pulmonary hypertension by the new definition. Patients in both disease categories had shorter transplant-free waitlist survival in the presence of pulmonary hypertension by both the new and old definitions. There was a trend toward the new definition of pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension better discerning outcomes compared to the old definition of pulmonary hypertension in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients. Most patients with advanced lung disease who are listed for lung transplantation have pulmonary hypertension, but fewer have pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension than pulmonary hypertension by the old definition. Both the old and new definition of precapillary pulmonary hypertension appear to discern outcomes among the two groups of lung disease analyzed, with some evidence to suggest that the new definition performs slightly better in the idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis population.
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 | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".