Pulmonary Thromboendarterectomy: The Potentially Curative Treatment of Choice for Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a consequence of unresolved organized thromboembolic obstruction of the pulmonary arteries, which can cause pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular failure. Owing to its subtle signs, determining its exact incidence and prevalence is challenging. Furthermore, CTEPH may also present without any prior venous thromboembolic history, contributing to underdiagnosis and undertreatment. Diagnosis requires a high degree of suspicion and is ruled out by a normal ventilation/perfusion ratio scintigraphy. Additional imaging by computed tomography and/or conventional angiography, as well as right heart catheterization, are required to confirm CTEPH and formulate treatment plans. Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy is the treatment of choice for eligible patients and can be potentially curative. Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy has a low mortality rate of 1% to 2% at expert centers and offers excellent long-term survival. Furthermore, recent advances in the techniques allow distal endarterectomy with comparable outcomes. Alternative treatment options are available for those who may not be operable or have prohibitive risks, providing some benefit. However, CTEPH is a progressive disease with low long-term survival rates if left untreated. Given excellent short- and long-term outcomes of surgery, as well as the benefits seen with other treatment modalities in noncandidate patients, it is crucial that precapillary pulmonary hypertension and CTEPH are ruled out in any patient with dyspnea of unexplained etiology. These patients should be referred to expert centers where accurate operability assessment and appropriate treatment strategies can be offered by a multidisciplinary team.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".