From acute SARS-CoV-2 infection to pulmonary hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the world progressively recovers from the acute stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we may be facing new challenges regarding the long-term consequences of COVID-19. Accumulating evidence suggests that pulmonary vascular thickening may be specifically associated with COVID-19, implying a potential tropism of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) virus for the pulmonary vasculature. Genetic alterations that may influence the severity of COVID-19 are similar to genetic drivers of pulmonary arterial hypertension. The pathobiology of the COVID-19-induced pulmonary vasculopathy shares many features (such as medial hypertrophy and smooth muscle cell proliferation) with that of pulmonary arterial hypertension. In addition, the presence of microthrombi in the lung vessels of individuals with COVID-19 during the acute phase, may predispose these subjects to the development of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. These similarities raise the intriguing question of whether pulmonary hypertension (PH) may be a long-term sequela of SARS-COV-2 infection. Accumulating evidence indeed support the notion that SARS-COV-2 infection is indeed a risk factor for persistent pulmonary vascular defects and subsequent PH development, and this could become a major public health issue in the future given the large number of individuals infected by SARS-COV-2 worldwide. Long-term studies assessing the risk of developing chronic pulmonary vascular lesions following COVID-19 infection is of great interest for both basic and clinical research and may inform on the best long-term management of survivors.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".