Multicentre European study for the treatment of advanced emphysema with bronchial valves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This multicentre, blinded, sham-controlled study was performed to assess the safety and effectiveness of bronchial valve therapy using a bilateral upper lobe treatment approach without the goal of lobar atelectasis. Patients with upper lobe predominant severe emphysema were randomised to bronchoscopy with (n = 37) or without (n = 36) IBV Valves for a 3-month blinded phase. A positive responder was defined as having both a ≥ 4-point improvement in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and a lobar volume shift as measured by quantitative computed tomography. At 3 months, there were eight (24%) positive responders in the treated group versus none (0%) in the control group (p = 0.002). Also, there was a significant shift in volume in the treated group from the upper lobes (mean ± SD -7.3 ± 9.0%) to the non-treated lobes (6.7 ± 14.5%), with minimal change in the control group (p<0.05). Mean SGRQ total score improved in both groups (treatment: -4.3 ± 16.2; control: -3.6 ± 10.7). The procedure and devices were well tolerated and there were no differences in adverse events reported in the treatment and control groups. Treatment with bronchial valves without complete lobar occlusion in both upper lobes was safe, but not effective in the majority of patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".