MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4313648796 · doi:10.1183/13993003.02150-2022

The new 2022 pulmonary hypertension guidelines: some small steps and some giant leaps forward for evidence-based care

2023· letter· en· W4313648796 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Price, Jason Weatherald

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLEAPSPulmonary hypertensionMultidisciplinary approachIntensive care medicineMedicineKey (lock)Evidence-based medicineCardiologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceAlternative medicineBusinessPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2022 ESC/ERS pulmonary hypertension guidelines reflect updated definitions, diagnosis and management recommendations based on current evidence. Multidisciplinary, patient-centred care and key areas for new research are central to the new guidelines. http://bit.ly/3UyswZR

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0410.042
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.025

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.170 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory Journal→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→