ArticleERJ open research2025
Clinical validation of a machine-learned, point-of-care system to IDENTIFY pulmonary hypertension.
Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Enabled Diagnostics Using Photoplethysmography (PPG): Beyond SpOLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Electrocardiogram and Pulmonary Hypertension: When Occam'S Razor Fails.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Facilitating Earlier Diagnosis of Pulmonary Hypertension Using a Novel Noninvasive Diagnostic.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a collection of diverse disorders, defined by mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) ≥21 mmHg (most recent guidelines) or ≥25 mmHg (previous guidelines, that underpins the field's past work) measured by right heart catheterisation (RHC). Considering the difficulties in diagnosing PH and the subsequent treatment delays, there is a need for novel diagnostics to enable prompt detection. Methods: An algorithm to assess mPAP elevation was validated using subjects with elevated mPAP from RHC (positive cohort) and subjects with low probability of PH by stringent screening of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) PH indicators (negative cohort). 25 mmHg and 21 mmHg were pre-specified as the co-primary and secondary sensitivity end-points, respectively, at 0.70. Specificity was the co-primary end-point at 0.60. The algorithm cut-point was pre-defined. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) was assessed at both mPAP thresholds. Findings: 462 subjects were consecutively enrolled across 18 US clinical sites between August 2019 and September 2022. Sensitivity at 25 mmHg and 21 mmHg was 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.87) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.73-0.82), respectively, with specificity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.87-0.96), passing the study end-points. The ROC-AUC values at 25 mmHg and 21 mmHg were 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.96) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.91-0.95), respectively. Further, performance was similar across PH subgroups (pre-capillary, combined pre- and post-capillary, and isolated post-capillary), as well as between men and women. Interpretation: The algorithm's performance is comparable, or possibly superior to, TTE, given that the tricuspid regurgitant velocity is not measurable in up to 41% of TTE cases. The test is a stress-free, noninvasive front-line test, presenting advantages to patients, physicians and healthcare systems.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.