Review of exhaled nitric oxide in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The up-regulation of nitric oxide (NO) by inflammatory cytokines and mediators in central and peripheral airway sites can be easily monitored in exhaled air (F(E)NO). It is now possible to estimate the predominant airway site of increased F(E)NO i.e. large versus peripheral airway/alveoli, and its potential pathologic and physiologic role in obstructive lung disease. In asthma, six double-blind, randomized, controlled algorithm trials have reported only equivocal benefits of add-on measurements of F(E)NO to usual clinical guideline management including spirometry. Significant design issues, as emphasized by Gibson, may exist. However, meta-analysis of these six studies (Petsky et al 2012 Thorax 67 199-208) concluded that routine serial measurements of F(E)NO for clinical asthma management does not appear warranted. In COPD including chronic bronchitis and emphysema, despite significant expiratory airflow limitation, when clinically stable as well as during exacerbation, F(E)NO, j'(awNO) and C(ANO) may all be normal or increased. Furthermore, the role of add-on monitoring of exhaled NO to GOLD management guidelines is less clear because of the absence of conclusive doubleblind, randomized, control trial studies concerning potential clinical benefits in the management of COPD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".