MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140868856 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1105185

A CFTR Potentiator in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis and the <i>G551D</i> Mutation

2011· article· en· W2140868856 on OpenAlexaff
Bonnie W. Ramsey, Jane C. Davies, Noel G. McElvaney, Elizabeth Tullis, Scott C. Bell, Pavel Dřevínek, Matthias Griese, Edward F. McKone, Claire Wainwright, Michael W. Konstan, Richard B. Moss, Félix Ratjen, Isabelle Sermet‐Gaudelus, Steven M. Rowe, Qunming Dong, Sally Rodriguez, Karl Yen, Claudia L. Ordoñez, J.S. Elborn

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthChildren's Hospital of PittsburghUniversity of AlabamaNational Center for Research ResourcesUniversity of PennsylvaniaSeattle Children's Research InstituteVertex PharmaceuticalsCase Western Reserve UniversityMedical Center, University of PittsburghCystic Fibrosis FoundationUniversity of PittsburghNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesJohns Hopkins UniversityImperial College LondonUniversity of WashingtonCystic Fibrosis Foundation TherapeuticsNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia
KeywordsPotentiatorCystic fibrosisMedicineIvacaftorCystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulatorMutationInternal medicineGeneticsPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Increasing the activity of defective cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein is a potential treatment for cystic fibrosis. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate ivacaftor (VX-770), a CFTR potentiator, in subjects 12 years of age or older with cystic fibrosis and at least one G551D-CFTR mutation. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg of ivacaftor every 12 hours (84 subjects, of whom 83 received at least one dose) or placebo (83, of whom 78 received at least one dose) for 48 weeks. The primary end point was the estimated mean change from baseline through week 24 in the percent of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)). RESULTS: The change from baseline through week 24 in the percent of predicted FEV(1) was greater by 10.6 percentage points in the ivacaftor group than in the placebo group (P<0.001). Effects on pulmonary function were noted by 2 weeks, and a significant treatment effect was maintained through week 48. Subjects receiving ivacaftor were 55% less likely to have a pulmonary exacerbation than were patients receiving placebo, through week 48 (P<0.001). In addition, through week 48, subjects in the ivacaftor group scored 8.6 points higher than did subjects in the placebo group on the respiratory-symptoms domain of the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-revised instrument (a 100-point scale, with higher numbers indicating a lower effect of symptoms on the patient's quality of life) (P<0.001). By 48 weeks, patients treated with ivacaftor had gained, on average, 2.7 kg more weight than had patients receiving placebo (P<0.001). The change from baseline through week 48 in the concentration of sweat chloride, a measure of CFTR activity, with ivacaftor as compared with placebo was -48.1 mmol per liter (P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar with ivacaftor and placebo, with a lower proportion of serious adverse events with ivacaftor than with placebo (24% vs. 42%). CONCLUSIONS: Ivacaftor was associated with improvements in lung function at 2 weeks that were sustained through 48 weeks. Substantial improvements were also observed in the risk of pulmonary exacerbations, patient-reported respiratory symptoms, weight, and concentration of sweat chloride. (Funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals and others; VX08-770-102 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00909532.).

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2,174
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207