MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14319: Riociguat in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Application of the 4-strata COMPERA 2.0 Risk Assessment Tool in the PATENT Studies

2023· article· en· W4389957508 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Rosenkranz, Marius M. Hoeper, David B. Badesch, Marc Humbert, David Langleben, John W. McConnell, Claudia Rahner, Hossein Ardeschir Ghofrani

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiociguatMedicinePlaceboChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionPost-hoc analysisInternal medicinePlacebo groupRisk assessmentPulmonary hypertensionCardiologySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The 2022 ESC/ERS treatment guidelines for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) recommend using a four-strata risk assessment strategy at follow-up. COMPERA 2.0 is a refined four-strata risk assessment tool that subdivides patients at intermediate risk of mortality at 1 year into intermediate-low and intermediate-high risk groups for a more granular approach to risk prediction. Aim: This post-hoc analysis applied COMPERA 2.0 to the PATENT studies of riociguat in patients with PAH. Methods: COMPERA 2.0 was applied to patients who were pretreated with PAH therapy at PATENT-1 entry. Patients with missing data for COMPERA 2.0 variables were excluded. In PATENT-1, risk strata were assessed at baseline and Week 12; and 6-minute walking distance (6MWD) at Week 12 was analyzed by risk strata at baseline. All pretreated patients entering the PATENT-2 open-label extension were included in Kaplan-Meier analyses to assess association of risk strata at PATENT-1 baseline and Week 12 with clinical worsening and survival. Results: At PATENT-1 baseline (riociguat 2.5 mg n=102, placebo n=49), more patients were at intermediate-low risk than intermediate-high risk (Figure 1). At PATENT-1 Week 12, a higher proportion of patients were at low risk with riociguat vs placebo (Figure 1). At PATENT-1 Week 12, the following mean [SD] changes in 6MWD were seen in patients at intermediate-low risk (riociguat 24 m [57 m], placebo 10 m [60 m]) and intermediate-high risk (riociguat 34 m [56 m], placebo –2 m [70 m]) by COMPERA 2.0 at baseline. COMPERA 2.0 assessed at PATENT-1 baseline and Week 12 was able to discriminate between risk strata for clinical worsening and survival in PATENT-2 (n=167, log-rank tests: p≤0.001 for all analyses). Conclusion: This analysis confirmed the risk-reduction benefits of riociguat in patients with PAH and validated the utility of COMPERA 2.0 in the long-term risk assessment of patients from a clinical trial population.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→