MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021916888 · doi:10.1517/13543784.12.7.1067

Potential new drugs for therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

2003· review· en· W2021916888 on OpenAlexfundno aff
W. de Boer

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Investigational Drugs · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of BernUniversity of SaskatchewanEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineInflammationChemokineCOPDImmunologyPulmonary diseaseMonocyteLungDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a major health problem with cigarette smoking as its major risk factor. Current therapies are directed against the symptoms (e.g., breathlessness and mucus production) or the chronic airway inflammation. However, the excessive annual decline in lung function and the airway inflammation have not yet been shown to be improved by these strategies. New potential drug therapies are directed against specific components of the inflammation. Novel drugs have been developed for treatment of inflammatory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in order to antagonise cytokines and chemokines such as TNF-alpha, CXC chemokine ligand 8 (IL-8) or CC chemokine ligand 2 (monocyte chemoattractant protein 1) that orchestrate the inflammatory process. Some of these drugs are shown to be effective in patients with other chronic inflammatory diseases but still have to prove their efficacy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

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)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Investigational DrugsSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207