MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Caregiver Network and Caregiving Needs in Women With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH)

2025· article· en· W4410268487 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. Thakur, Vallerie V. McLaughlin, Ioana R. Preston, Heather Black, A. Watzker, Matthew O’Hara, Matthew M. Yeh, Ellen F. Goldman, Anjali Vaidya, Dominik Lautsch, Marion Delcroix

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary hypertensionIntensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive debilitating disease that disproportionately impacts young women. The aim of this study is to explore caregiver networks and support around these women. METHODS: This is an interim descriptive analysis of data from an online survey of women (age 21-50) with PAH living in the US and UK. De novo questions and validated instruments of social support and interpersonal support evaluation were included in the survey. Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee exemption was obtained in all countries. Final analysis which includes ∼120 more patients from Canada, Germany, France, and Italy will be available for presentation at the conference. RESULTS: This analysis includes 150 women patients (US=120, UK=30). Regarding the make-up of informal caregiver networks, in the US patients most frequently reported spouses (58%), children (53%) and friend(s) (51%) as their caregivers, while in UK patients most frequently reported spouse (53%), relatives (30%) and parent(s) (23%). In the US patients required support from their spouse almost every day to provide financial support (49%), check in how they were doing (46%) and household duties (47%), while in the UK patients required support almost every day with household duties (25%), taking care of important people in life (31%) and making efforts to cheer up the patient (31%). Participants were asked to indicate the amount of support they needed versus the amount of support they receive. In the past four weeks patients reported ‘needing support' with household duties, 88% (US) and 100% (UK); caring for their parents and children, 64% (US) and 83% (UK); and finances, 72% (US) and 67% (UK). Patients reported ‘having reliable support’ with household duties, 88% (US) and 87% (UK); caring for their parents or children, 79% (US) and 90% (UK); and finances 72% (US) and 90% (UK). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that women with PAH require a strong network of caregivers and most burden of caregiving falls on family members. Despite these networks of care, there may be areas where more support is needed. Further research is warranted to investigate areas where patients don't have full coverage from their informal caregiver network and explore to what extent these patients are linked to formal support programs to cover those needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→