Pulmonary perfusion defects or residual vascular obstruction and persistent symptoms after pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Up to 50% of pulmonary embolism (PE) patients have perfusion defects or residual vascular obstruction during follow-up despite adequate anticoagulant treatment, and a similar percentage experience chronic functional limitations and/or dyspnoea post-PE. We aimed to evaluate the association between pulmonary perfusion defects or residual vascular obstruction and functional recovery after PE. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis including studies assessing both the presence of perfusion defects or residual vascular obstruction and functional recovery ( i.e. persistent symptoms, quality of life, exercise endurance). An odds ratio was pooled for perfusion defects or residual vascular obstruction and persistent symptoms using a random-effect model. Results: 12 studies were included totalling 1888 PE patients; at a median of 6 months after PE (range 2–72 months), 34% had perfusion defects or residual vascular obstruction and 37% reported persistent symptoms. Among patients with perfusion defects or residual vascular obstruction, 48% (95% CI 37–60%, I 2 =82%) remained symptomatic during follow-up, compared to 34% (95% CI 20–51%, I 2 =96%) of patients without such defects. Presence of perfusion defects or residual vascular obstruction was associated with persistent symptoms (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.66–2.78; I 2 =0%, τ = 0). Notably, there was no association between these defects and quality of life or cardiopulmonary exercise test parameters. Conclusion: While the odds of having persistent symptoms was higher in patients with perfusion defects or residual vascular obstruction after acute PE, a significant proportion of these patients reported no limitations. A possible causality between perfusion defects or residual vascular obstruction and residual functional limitation therefore remains to be proven.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".