Drugs and toxins associated with pulmonary arterial hypertension: from established culprits to novel threats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare form of precapillary pulmonary hypertension. PAH may be idiopathic, heritable, associated with features of pulmonary veno-occlusive disease and/or pulmonary capillary haemangiomatosis, or linked to drug and toxin exposure. Since the first identification of PAH cases associated with drugs and toxins >50 years ago, the number of suspected agents has significantly increased. Following the 6th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension (2018), drugs and toxins have been categorised based on their strength of association with PAH, with nine agents currently classified as definitely associated and 16 as possibly associated. At the 7th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension (2024), carfilzomib and mitomycin C were added as definitely associated with PAH, while bevacizumab and bortezomib were considered as possibly associated with PAH. In cases of suspected PAH following drug or toxin exposure, specific measures are required, including pharmacovigilance reporting, echocardiography, right heart catheterisation to confirm the diagnosis and potential initiation of targeted treatment. Here, we review the latest updates on PAH associated with drugs and toxins.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".