MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1886211687 · doi:10.1002/cpt.284

Emerging monoclonal antibodies as targeted innovative therapeutic approaches to asthma

2015· review· en· W1886211687 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Mitchell, AI El‐Gammal, Paul M. O’Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmalizumabAsthmaImmunologyMedicineMonoclonal antibodyImmunoglobulin ECytokineMepolizumabAntibodyAllergyEosinophil

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asthma is characterized by discordant responses among cells of the adaptive and innate immune systems. This interplay involves a complex pattern of cytokine-driven processes resulting in cell migration and recruitment, inflammation, and proliferative states. The significant majority of asthmatic patients respond well to conventional inhaled treatments. However, about 5% of asthmatics have severe refractory asthma and account for 50% of the health expenditure on asthma. Human(ized) monoclonal antibodies (hMabs) targeting inflammatory pathways are promising therapeutic agents in asthma management. The anti-IgE hMab omalizumab was the first biologic treatment approved for the treatment of allergic asthma. Potential future strategies and targets include interleukin (IL)-5, IL-4, and IL-13, anti-TSLP, IL-25, and IL-33. hMabs targeting IL-5 have shown great promise in severe refractory asthma with a persisting eosinophilia, and clinical trials with hMabs against IL-13 and IL4Rα have also shown clinical benefit. Studies of hMabs against other cytokines in severe asthma are under way.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.407
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.100 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207