Insights Into Differences in Pulmonary Hemodynamics in Hispanic Patients With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Emerging data suggest that Hispanic patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) exhibit improved survival rates compared to individuals of other ethnicities with similar baseline hemodynamics. However, the underlying reasons for this survival advantage remain unclear. This study focused on comparing pulmonary hemodynamics in Hispanic and non-Hispanic PAH patients and how these differences may contribute to varied clinical outcomes. Methods: A retrospective analysis of right heart catheterization data was conducted on a treatment-naive PAH patient cohort from a single center. Results: Over a 10-year period, a total of 226 PAH patients were identified, of which 138 (61%) were Hispanic and 88 (39%) were non-Hispanic. Hispanic patients presented with lower pulmonary artery pressures, lower pulmonary vascular resistance, and exhibited significantly higher pulmonary arterial compliance (PAc). Hispanic patients had better 5-year survival rates. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of exploring phenotypic differences in ethnically diverse PAH cohorts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".