Oral Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension-Targeted Therapy in Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension due to Interstitial Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to determine whether treatment with oral pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH)-targeted therapy is associated with functional or hemodynamic improvement in patients with pulmonary hypertension due to interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 1,507 consented patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) from the University of Chicago PH Registry. Exclusion criteria included: enrollment in PH-related clinical trials, use of inhaled treprostinil or iloprost and prior PAH-targeted therapy initiated before consenting to registry enrollment, thus precluding baseline data. Data analyzed included demographics, interstitial lung disease (ILD) classification, PAH-targeted therapy, functional data, hemodynamics, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) before and after initiation of treatment. Data were analyzed using paired t-test, or related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: Of 37 patients included, 27 (73%) received treatment with one PAH-targeted therapy and nine (24%) received dual therapy. At baseline, median NT-proBNP was 1,498 ng/dL (675 - 3,208), mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) was 45 ± 11 mm Hg, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) of 9 ± 4 Wood units (WU). In patients with measurements both before and after treatment with PAH-targeted therapy, there was a decrease in PVR (n = 13, 8 vs. 5 WU, P < 0.001), an increase in cardiac output (n = 13, 4 vs. 5 L/min, P = 0.014), and a decrease in NT-proBNP levels (n = 26, 1,421 vs. 842 ng/dL, P = 0.045). Conclusions: In this study, use of PAH-targeted therapy in patients with PH-ILD was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in NT-proBNP and pulmonary hemodynamics.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".