Global trends in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension clinical trials and dissemination of results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment options for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) are rapidly expanding. The purpose of this study is to identify trends in CTEPH clinical trials and the publication of results. We performed a worldwide review of completed and ongoing clinical trials through searching the ClinicalTrials.gov database and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for "CTEPH" and related terms. Entries were classified as pharmaceutical/procedural interventions (Group 1), all other clinical trials (Group 2) and patient registries (Group 3). Trial characteristics and national affiliation were recorded. PubMed was searched for related publications. There were 117 clinical trials registry entries after removing duplicates and non-target records. Group 1 comprised 29 pharmaceutical, 15 procedural, and four combined interventions starting in 2005, 2010, and 2016, respectively. Riociguat and balloon pulmonary angioplasty were the most frequent pharmaceutical and procedural interventions, respectively. The proportion of procedural trials increased over time from 0% of those in 2005-2009 to 29% in 2010-2014 and 54% in 2015-2020. There were 56 entries in Group 2 and 13 in Group 3. Japan was the most frequent national affiliation and the most frequent participating country, present in 28% of all trials. The proportion of entries with published results was highest with Group 3 (62%) and lowest with Group 1 (27%). Thirty percent of all publications occurred in 2020. In conclusion, CTEPH clinical trials are increasingly procedural based, with growth largely attributable to Japan and balloon pulmonary angioplasty. Most trials have not published, but results from balloon pulmonary angioplasty clinical trials are anticipated soon.
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 | 0.227 | 0.491 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.059 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".