Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pursuit of the perfect biomarker in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been fraught with peril. The dream, of course, is of a single, accessible and inexpensive laboratory test that can more accurately diagnose COPD, define its severity, or fluctuate in accordance with disease progression and remission. In its ideal form, it would allow for earlier diagnosis of disease or earlier identification of the most severely affected patients, all with high sensitivity and specificity. Or it would properly indicate to a physician whether a particular COPD treatment has worked or failed. One only has to look to cardiology and its use of the troponin assay for the diagnosis of a myocardial infarction or to nephrology and its reliance on creatinine as a measure of renal function for such examples. If a similar biomarker is realised in COPD, it would significantly bolster what we can now predict through spirometry alone [1]. However, 20 years of painstaking research has led us no closer to this Holy Grail of biomarkers. To date, not one blood-based biomarker has reached meaningful clinical significance in COPD. Even the most promising candidates like C-reactive protein and fibrinogen, both of which have been shown to at least predict mortality in COPD, are nonspecific and lack the ability to distinguish manifestations of COPD from other inflammatory disorders [2, 3]. Pneumoproteins like surfactant protein D and club cell secretory protein, which are primarily produced in the lung, could theoretically circumvent these limitations. However, only weak associations have been found between …
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.197 | 0.120 |
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".