The Role of Dornase Alfa in the Treatment of Severe Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aggressive antibiotic regimens, chest physiotherapy, and pancreatic enzyme therapy have become standard treatments for cystic fibrosis and have helped to increase the life expectancy of patients with this disease. Recently, dornase alfa (recombinant human deoxyribonuclease I, also known as rh DNase I) has received attention as a useful treatment in cystic fibrosis. 1‐4 Dornase alfa is a recombinant enzymatic product designed to produce the same effects as native human DNase through selective digestion of extracellular DNA. In vitro, dornase alfa hydrolyzes extracellular DNA in patients’ purulent sputum, thereby reducing sputum viscoelasticity. Its mechanism of action in vivo may be related to a decrease in sputum viscoelasticity or a reduction in sputum adhesiveness (or both), either of which might enhance clearance of sputum. 1 Studies have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of dornase alfa in patients with cystic fibrosis, and the drug is indicated in Canada for mild to moderate disease. 3‐9 In patients with more advanced disease, the role of dornase alfa is less clear. This paper evaluates its role in these patients. Patients with severe pulmonary disease (forced vital capacity less than 40%) represent 7% of the cystic fibrosis population. 5 The 1-year mortality rate for this group approaches 50%. 5
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".