Prognostic relevance of Exercise Pulmonary Hypertension: Results of the multi-center PEX-NET Clinical Research Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: between rest and exercise in the 2022 European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society PH guidelines. However, large, multicentre studies on the prognostic relevance of exercise haemodynamics and its added value to resting haemodynamics are missing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The PEX-NET (Pulmonary Haemodynamics during Exercise Network) registry enrolled patients who underwent clinically indicated right heart catheterisations both at rest and ergometer exercise from 23 PH centres worldwide. In this retrospective analysis we included subjects with resting mPAP <25 mmHg and complete haemodynamic data at rest and exercise in the same body position. Mixed effects Cox proportional hazard models with random effect centre were applied to identify independent markers of prognosis among the haemodynamic parameters. RESULTS: (HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.16-3.58; p=0.013). CONCLUSION: The mPAP/CO slope is a robust and independent predictor of prognosis in patients with normal or mildly elevated resting PAP that provides prognostic information beyond resting haemodynamics and appears suitable to define exercise PH.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".