MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412735337 · doi:10.14740/cr2067

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Left Heart Disease Phenotype: A Challenging Crossroad

2025· review· en· W4412735337 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Riccardo Scagliola

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicinePulmonary hypertension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) usually affects young people with a low burden of cardiovascular comorbidities, epidemiologic changes over time have been providing a codified phenotype of subjects with PAH, characterized by a hemodynamic profile compatible with pure pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension (PH), associated with increased risk factors for left heart disease (LHD). Compared with the younger subjects belonging to the classical PAH phenotype, those with PAH and LHD phenotype share several distinctive features. They include: 1) the older mean age at diagnosis of PAH; 2) peculiar hemodynamic features, characterized by a trend toward lower values of mean pulmonary arterial pressure and pulmonary vascular resistances, and higher values of pulmonary artery wedge pressure; 3) greater clinical deterioration; 4) more impaired exercise capacity; 5) higher mortality risk; 6) weaker response to PAH-targeted treatment; and 7) higher rate of PAH drug discontinuation. Physicians must be aware of such peculiar phenotype of PAH. This is advisable for providing a comprehensive diagnostic workup, in order to reduce the risk of PH misclassification and provide the most appropriate decision-making approach.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueCardiology ResearchSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207