A Multidimensional Index and Staging System for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive fibrotic lung disease with an overall poor prognosis. A simple-to-use staging system for IPF may improve prognostication, help guide management, and facilitate research. OBJECTIVE: To develop a multidimensional prognostic staging system for IPF by using commonly measured clinical and physiologic variables. DESIGN: A clinical prediction model was developed and validated by using retrospective data from 3 large, geographically distinct cohorts. SETTING: Interstitial lung disease referral centers in California, Minnesota, and Italy. PATIENTS: 228 patients with IPF at the University of California, San Francisco (derivation cohort), and 330 patients at the Mayo Clinic and Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital (validation cohort). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was mortality, treating transplantation as a competing risk. Model discrimination was assessed by the c-index, and calibration was assessed by comparing predicted and observed cumulative mortality at 1, 2, and 3 years. RESULTS: Four variables were included in the final model: gender (G), age (A), and 2 lung physiology variables (P) (FVC and Dlco). A model using continuous predictors (GAP calculator) and a simple point-scoring system (GAP index) performed similarly in derivation (c-index of 70.8 and 69.3, respectively) and validation (c-index of 69.1 and 68.7, respectively). Three stages (stages I, II, and III) were identified based on the GAP index with 1-year mortality of 6%, 16%, and 39%, respectively. The GAP models performed similarly in pooled follow-up visits (c-index ≥71.9). LIMITATION: Patients were drawn from academic centers and analyzed retrospectively. CONCLUSION: The GAP models use commonly measured clinical and physiologic variables to predict mortality in patients with IPF.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".