Worsening dyspnoea as a predictor of progression of pulmonary fibrosis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF), also known as progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD), is a term used to describe progressive lung fibrosis in a patient with an ILD other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) [1]. Patients with PPF often experience burdensome symptoms such as cough and dyspnoea and impairment in their quality of life [2]. Several studies have reported associations between symptoms and subsequent disease progression in patients with pulmonary fibrosis [3–5], but little is known about the relationship between changes in symptoms and outcomes including survival. Footnotes This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal . It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article. Conflict of Interest: A. Versi has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: The authors did not receive payment for development of this manuscript. Conflict of interest: MW reports grants to her institution from The Dutch Pulmonary Fibrosis Patients Association, The Dutch Lung Foundation, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, The Thorax Foundation, Sarcoidosis.nl, AstraZeneca/Daiichi-Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), and Hoffmann-La Roche and consulting or speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Galecto, Hoffmann-La Roche, Horizon, Kinevant Sciencs, Molecure, NeRRe, Novartis, PureTech, Thyron, Trevi, Vicore. Conflict of interest: JJS reports consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and is an unpaid member of the Board of Directors for Live Fully, Inc. and patientMpower. Conflict of interest: PS reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from PPM Services and Boehringer Ingelheim; grants from Roche; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glycocore, JucaBio, Lupin, Menarini, Novartis, Pieris, Structure Therapeutics, and Veracyte; his wife is an employee of AstraZeneca. Conflict of interest: MKo reports grants from the Canadian Institute for Health Research, Roche, BI, Pieris; fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, the European Respiratory Journal, LabCorp, Bellerophon, United Therapeutics, Nitto Denko, MitoImmune, Pieris, Abbvie, DevPro Biopharma, Horizon, Algernon, CSL Behring, ShouTi. Conflict of interest: HN reports grants and consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche and has been a trial investigator for Galapagos, Galecto, Gilead, Novartis, Sanofi; he has participated on an endpoint committee for Galapagos. Conflict of interest: MKr reports grants, consulting fees and fees for speaking from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche and holds leadership or fiduciary roles with Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pneumologie, the European Respiratory Society, and the German Respiratory Society. Conflict of interest: WS and KBR are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim. Conflict of interest: YI reports grants from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare and the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development; payment for presentations from Boehringer IngelheimBI, Kyorin, Shionogi, GlaxoSmithKline, ThermoFisher; and has served as a consultant or steering committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Roche, Taiho, CSL Behring, Vicore Pharma, Savara.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».