Phenotype and Outcomes According to Loop Diuretic Use in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The use of loop diuretics in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is less frequent compared with heart failure. The clinical and prognostic characteristics of PAH patients according to loop diuretic use remain unexplored. In this study, we retrospectively analysed the characteristics and survival of PAH patients requiring different doses of loop diuretics. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients diagnosed with PAH between 2001 and 2022 at seven European centres for the management of PAH. According to the median equivalent dose of furosemide in the overall cohort, patients were divided into two subgroups: no/low-dose loop diuretic and high-dose loop diuretic. Primary outcome was 5 year all-cause mortality. Among the 397 patients included, 227 (57%) were treated with loop diuretics. Median daily furosemide equivalent dose was 25 mg, and accordingly patients were divided in no/low dose (i.e. ≤25 mg, n = 257, 65%) vs. high dose (i.e. >25 mg, n = 140, 35%). Patients in the high-dose group were older, more likely to have comorbidities, and had a more severe disease according to the ESC/ERS risk category. Crude 5 year survival was significantly shorter in patients in the high-dose group, but after adjustment for age, sex, and risk category, high loop diuretic dose was not significantly associated with the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Use of high dose of loop diuretics in PAH is associated with a higher burden of comorbidities, more severe disease, and worse survival. However, in PAH, the need of high loop diuretic dose is a marker of disease severity and not an independent prognostic factor.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".