MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The use of sputum cell counts to evaluate asthma medications

2001· review· en· W1941984383 on OpenAlexaff
Krishnan Parameswaran, Frederick E. Hargreave

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaMedicineSputumTheophyllineCorticosteroidEosinophiliaPharmacologyBronchodilatorLeukotrieneFenoterolImmunologyInternal medicinePathologyTuberculosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total and differential cell counts from hypertonic-induced, dithiothreitol-dispersed sputum provide reproducible measurements of airway inflammatory cell counts, which are responsive to treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs. They have helped to understand the kinetics of inflammatory cell changes in asthma after the reduction of corticosteroids and the subsequent re-introduction of treatment. They have identified that the presence of sputum eosinophilia in asthma, chronic cough and chronic airflow limitation is a predictor of steroid-responsiveness and of lack of 'asthma control'. They can be used to study the dose-response effect of inhaled corticosteroids and may be useful to establish the relative potency of different corticosteroid formulations and delivery devices. Sputum cell counts are also useful to study the potential anti-inflammatory effects of drugs like theophylline, long-acting beta-adrenoceptor agonists, leukotriene antagonists and newer drugs in development. They may be helpful to select add-on therapy to corticosteroids in 'difficult-to-control' asthma.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207