Exercise and pulsatile pulmonary vascular loading in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease (CTEPD) is characterized by organized nonresolving thrombi in pulmonary arteries (PA). In CTEPD with pulmonary hypertension (PH), chronic thromboembolic PH (CTEPH), early wave reflection results in abnormalities of pulsatile afterload and augmented PA pressures. We hypothesized that exercise during right heart catheterization (RHC) would elicit more frequent elevations of pulsatile vascular afterload than resistive elevations in patients with CTEPD without PH. The interdependent physiology of pulmonary venous and PA hemodynamics was also evaluated. Consecutive patients with CTEPD without PH (resting mean PA pressure ≤20 mmHg) undergoing an exercise RHC were identified. Latent resistive and pulsatile abnormalities of pulmonary vascular afterload were defined as an exercise mean PA pressure/cardiac output >3 WU, and PA pulse pressure to PA wedge pressure (PA PP/PAWP) ratio >2.5, respectively. Forty‐five patients (29% female, 53 ± 14 years) with CTEPD without PH were analyzed. With exercise, 19 patients had no abnormalities (ExNOR), 26 patients had abnormalities (ExABN) of pulsatile (20), resistive (2), or both (4) elements of pulmonary vascular afterload. Exercise elicited elevations of pulsatile afterload (53%) more commonly than resistive afterload (13%) (p < 0.001). ExABN patients had lower PA compliance and higher pulmonary vascular resistance at rest and exercise and prolonged resistance‐compliance time product at rest. The physiological relationship between changes in PA pressures relative to PAWP was disrupted in the ExABN group. In CTEPD without PH, exercise RHC revealed latent pulmonary vascular afterload elevations in 58% of patients with more frequent augmentation of pulsatile than resistive pulmonary vascular afterload.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".