MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contemporary Treatment Strategies in Pulmonary Hypertension: A Clinician's Guide

2025· review· en· W4415374221 on OpenAlex
Brandon Budhram, Samuel Chung, Marc Humbert, Evelyn M. Horn

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary hypertensionMEDLINEPulmonary diseaseRespiratory diseasePulmonary medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a complex condition characterized by pulmonary vasculopathy and progressive right ventricular dysfunction. Recent advances have reshaped PH management, including refined risk stratification, improved patient phenotyping, and the discovery of novel therapeutics. In alignment with the recommendations of the Seventh World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension, we summarize updated treatment strategies and emerging therapies, such as sotatercept, while acknowledging research gaps and areas of clinical equipoise. This practical, evidence-based review explores treatment across all groups of PH to inform clinical decision-making, improve long-term patient outcomes, and address both current and future challenges in PH management.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.336 · 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