MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414888930 · doi:10.15420/icr.2024.46

Importance of Pulmonary Embolism Anatomy in Ventilatory Distress and Haemodynamics

2025· article· en· W4414888930 on OpenAlexaff
Alfredo Páez-Carpio, Juan José Ciampi-Dopazo, Sebastian Mafeld, Javier Puerma-Jiménez, Gilbert Maroun, JA Guirola

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Cardiology Reviews Research Resources · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary embolismHemodynamicsThrombolysisPulmonary arteryPULMONARY EMBOLUSEmbolusPulmonary hypertensionVenous return curve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, with clinical outcomes strongly influenced by the anatomical distribution of emboli. This review explores the impact of PE anatomy on ventilatory distress and haemodynamics, emphasising the distinction between proximal and distal emboli. Proximal emboli, located in the main or lobar pulmonary arteries, significantly impairing pulmonary flow, increase pulmonary artery pressure and cause severe right ventricular dysfunction, necessitating prompt intervention. Distal emboli, while less severe, still pose risks, especially in patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, potentially leading to localised ventilation-perfusion mismatch and hypoxaemia. Therapeutic approaches vary by clinical status and embolus location, with systemic thrombolysis or catheter-directed therapy preferred for unstable patients with usually proximal PE, while anticoagulation suffices in stable cases, most of which involve distal emboli. Understanding PE anatomy and its relationship with PE haemodynamic and ventilatory failure is critical for risk stratification, treatment guidance and improvement of patient outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventional Cardiology Reviews Research ResourcesSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207