MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106578444 · doi:10.1586/ers.09.7

Omalizumab for asthma: pharmacology and clinical profile

2009· article· en· W2106578444 on OpenAlexaff
Leandro Genehr Fritscher, Kenneth R. Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Respiratory Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmalizumabMedicineAsthmaExacerbationPlaceboAsthma exacerbationsClinical trialImmunoglobulin EIntensive care medicineQuality of life (healthcare)PharmacologyImmunologyInternal medicineAlternative medicineAntibodyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asthma remains uncontrolled in a significant minority of patients despite apparently optimal therapy with conventional inhaled agents. Omalizumab, the first 'biological' therapy of asthma, has emerged as a potentially useful therapy of moderate-to-severe atopic asthma. When administered subcutaneously every 2-4 weeks, omalizumab binds to circulating IgE, preventing the interaction of IgE with high-affinity receptors. Placebo-controlled trials show that its use reduces exacerbation frequency, thereby allowing decreases in the dosage of inhaled or oral steroids, while improving health status (i.e., quality of life). This article reviews the pharmacological aspects of this medication, the clinical studies supporting its use and the recent safety concerns highlighted by the US FDA.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.399 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Respiratory MedicineSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207