MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301585911 · doi:10.1183/16000617.0061-2022

Riociguat and the right ventricle in pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension

2022· review· en· W4301585911 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond L. Benza, David Langleben, Anna R. Hemnes, Anton Vonk Noordegraaf, Stephan Rosenkranz, Thenappan Thenappan, Paul M. Hassoun, Ioana R. Preston, Stefano Ghio, Roberto Badagliacca, Carmine Dario Vizza, Iréne Lang, Christian Meier, Ekkehard Grünig

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Review · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersBayer
KeywordsRiociguatMedicineChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionPulmonary hypertensionCardiologyInternal medicineVentricleRight ventricular hypertrophyAfterload

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) are progressive diseases that can lead to right heart failure and death. Right ventricular dysfunction, hypertrophy and maladaptive remodelling are consequences of increased right ventricular (RV) afterload in PAH and CTEPH and are indicative of long-term outcomes. Because RV failure is the main cause of morbidity and mortality in PAH and CTEPH, successful treatments should lead to improvements in RV parameters. Riociguat is a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator approved for the treatment of PAH and inoperable or persistent/recurrent CTEPH after pulmonary endarterectomy. This review examines the current evidence showing the effect of riociguat on the right ventricle, with particular focus on remodelling, function and structural parameters in preclinical models and patients with PAH or CTEPH.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory ReviewSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207