Therapeutic implications of ‘neutrophilic asthma’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examines the association between airway neutrophilia and severe asthma, potential mechanisms, and the effect on asthma control of therapies directed at reducing airway neutrophil numbers or activity. RECENT FINDINGS: The majority of studies that observe an association between airway neutrophilia and severe asthma are cross-sectional in nature, and the intensity of neutrophilia is low and may be a reflection of the age of the patients, effect of tobacco smoke exposure, or the high doses of corticosteroids used to treat their asthma. There may be a small proportion of patients who may have abnormal innate immune responses that may lead to airway neutrophilia. However, these neutrophils may not be any more activated than in patients with milder asthma. Novel strategies using small molecule antagonists against the interleukin-8 receptor, CXCR2, are able to reduce airway neutrophilia, and their clinical efficacies are being investigated. SUMMARY: Although cross-sectional studies suggest that airway neutrophilia may be observed in some patients with severe asthma, it is not clearly established if this is a consequence of treatment with corticosteroids or if it contributes directly to asthma pathobiology and severity. New therapies such as anti-CXCR2 provide an opportunity to investigate the contribution of neutrophils to asthma severity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".