Sex and gender in pulmonary arterial hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare disease characterised by pulmonary vascular remodelling and elevated pulmonary pressure, which eventually leads to right heart failure and death. Registries worldwide have noted a female predominance of the disease, spurring particular interest in hormonal involvement in the disease pathobiology. Several experimental models have shown both protective and deleterious effects of oestrogens, suggesting that complex mechanisms participate in PAH pathogenesis. In fact, oestrogen metabolites as well as receptors and enzymes implicated in oestrogen signalling pathways and associated conditions such asBMPR2mutation contribute to PAH penetrance more specifically in women. Conversely, females have better right ventricular function, translating to a better prognosis. Along with right ventricular adaptation, women tend to respond to PAH treatment differently from men. As some young women suffer from PAH, contraception is of particular importance, considering that pregnancy in patients with PAH is strongly discouraged due to high risk of death. When contraception measures fail, pregnant women need a multidisciplinary team-based approach. This article aims to review epidemiology, mechanisms underlying the higher female predominance, but better prognosis and the intricacies in management of women affected by PAH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".