MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168034008 · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2021.05.052

Results From the United States Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension Registry

2021· article· en· W3168034008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kim M. Kerr, C. Gregory Elliott, Kelly Chin, Raymond L. Benza, Richard N. Channick, R. Duane Davis, Feng He, Andrea Z. LaCroix, Michael M. Madani, Vallerie V. McLaughlin, Myung Park, Ivan M. Robbins, Victor F. Tapson, Jeffrey R. Terry, Victor Test, Sonia Jain, William R. Auger

Bibliographic record

VenueCHEST Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersActelion PharmaceuticalsNational Institutes of HealthBayer HealthCareBayer FundBTGUniversity of CaliforniaIronwood Pharmaceuticals, IncorporatedUniversity of California, San DiegoEKOS CorporationGilead SciencesPfizerAcceleronUnited Therapeutics CorporationAstraZenecaBayer CorporationAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary hypertensionPulmonary embolismPulmonary thromboendarterectomyCOPDPulmonary arteryCohortInternal medicineBlood pressureChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionSurgeryCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The United States Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension Registry (US-CTEPH-R) was designed to characterize the demographic characteristics, evaluation, clinical course, and outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical therapies for patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the differences in baseline characteristics and 1-year outcomes between operated and nonoperated subjects? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study describes a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal, observational registry of patients newly diagnosed (< 6 months) with CTEPH. Inclusion criteria required a mean pulmonary artery pressure ≥ 25 mm Hg documented by right heart catheterization and radiologic confirmation of CTEPH. Between 2015 and 2018, a total of 750 patients were enrolled and followed up biannually until 2019. RESULTS: Most patients with CTEPH (87.9%) reported a history of acute pulmonary embolism. CTEPH diagnosis delays were frequent (median, 10 months), and most patients reported World Health Organization functional class 3 status at enrollment with a median mean pulmonary artery pressure of 44 mm Hg. The registry cohort was subdivided into Operable patients undergoing pulmonary thromboendarterectomy (PTE) surgery (n = 566), Operable patients who did not undergo surgery (n = 88), and those who were Inoperable (n = 96). Inoperable patients were older than Operated patients; less likely to be obese; have a DVT history, non-type O blood group, or thrombophilia; and more likely to have COPD or a history of cancer. PTE resulted in a median pulmonary vascular resistance decline from 6.9 to 2.6 Wood units (P < .001) with a 3.9% in-hospital mortality. At 1-year follow-up, Operated patients were less likely treated with oxygen, diuretics, or pulmonary hypertension-targeted therapy compared with Inoperable patients. A larger percentage of Operated patients were World Health Organization functional class 1 or 2 at 1 year (82.9%) compared with the Inoperable (48.2%) and Operable/No Surgery (56%) groups (P < .001). INTERPRETATION: Differences exist in the clinical characteristics between patients who exhibited operable CTEPH and those who were inoperable, with the most favorable 1-year outcomes in those who underwent PTE surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02429284; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCHEST JournalSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207