History of Respiratory Medicine in Canada: Pulmonary hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a serious, progressive, and often fatal clinical-physiologic syndrome. PH is defined by elevated mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), typically complicated by right ventricular (RV) failure in advanced stages, and affected patients suffer symptoms, disability, and premature mortality. PH has been a focus of basic and clinical research since the 1950s, with important contributions by many cardiopulmonary clinicians and scientists in multiple Canadian institutions. The history of PH in Canada starts from the earliest reports of electrocardiogram (EKG) diagnosis of PH and care of children with PH associated with congenital heart disease. Innovative basic science research greatly expanded our understanding of the pathobiology of PH, and subsequent clinical translational research advanced our ability to diagnose, assess, and treat patients with PH-targeted medications and surgical approaches, especially for WHO group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and WHO group 4 chronic thromboembolic PH (CTEPH). Moreover, development of a network of PH expert centers spanning across Canada supported national collaborative excellence in education, clinical care and research. These centers and treatments have helped to significantly prolong and improve the lives of Canadian patients affected by PH. Furthermore, grassroots efforts by patients and their caregivers to support others similarly affected by PH led to development of a national PH community supported by the nonprofit Pulmonary Hypertension Association (PHA) of Canada. True to the spirit of the “History of Respiratory Medicine in Canada”, conceived by Louis-Philippe Boulet, this article captures the history and excellence of Canadian contributions to the field of PH.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.004 |
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".