MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387865677 · doi:10.1080/14656566.2023.2273395

Pharmacological management of connective tissue disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension

2023· review· en· W4387865677 on OpenAlexaff
Mithum Kularatne, Athénaïs Boucly, Laurent Savale, Sabina Solinas, Céline Cheron, Anne Roche, Mitja Jevnikar, Xavier Jaïs, David Montani, Marc Humbert, Olivier Sitbon

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary hypertensionConnective tissue diseaseDiseaseConnective tissueCardiologyPathologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAutoimmune disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a severe, progressive pulmonary vasculopathy (Group 1 Pulmonary Hypertension (PH)) that complicates the course of many connective tissue diseases (CTD). Detailed testing is required to differentiate PAH from other types of PH caused by CTD such as left heart disease (Group 2 PH), pulmonary parenchymal disease (Group 3 PH), and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (Group 4 PH). PAH is most frequently seen in systemic sclerosis but can also be seen with systemic lupus erythematosus, mixed CTD, and primary Sjogren's syndrome. AREAS COVERED: This review discusses the epidemiology of CTD-associated PAH, outlines the complex diagnosis approach, and finishes with an in-depth discussion on the current treatment paradigm. Focus is placed on challenges faced in the treatment of CTD-associated PAH, (decreased efficacy and poorer tolerance of pharmacological therapies) and includes a discussion on the future investigational treatments. EXPERT OPINION: Despite significant advances over the past decades with more aggressive treatment algorithms, CTD-associated PAH patients continue to have poorer survival compared to those with idiopathic PAH. This review highlights factors leading to disparate outcomes compared to other forms of PAH, and discusses on further improvements that may increase quality of life and survival for CTD-associated PAH patients.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.178
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on PharmacotherapySame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207