Pirfenidone in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis - description of a German cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive and invariably deadly disease with a prognosis similar to that of many common malignancies. Until recently, there was no drug specifically licensed for the treatment of IPF. Pirfenidone was approved in the EU and Canada for the treatment of adults with mild to moderate IPF in 2011. Pirfenidone significantly reduces disease progression as compared to placebo (Noble PW, et al. Lancet 2011;377:1760-1769), but side effects may lead to compliance problems and/or discontinuation of treatment. In spite of this, 80% of patients stay on treatment, and side effects are usually reversible, treatable, and decrease over time (Valeyre D, et al. Eur Resp J 2012; 40 (Suppl 56):563s). This is a prospective observational single-centre cohort study at a pneumological referral centre. The target is to collect real world clinical data of Pirfenidone in 31 IPF patients for a period of about 2 years. The patients are being examined at regular intervals, and according to routine clinical practice the examinations include lung function tests, radiological imaging and blood tests, as well as assessment of possible side effects. At baseline, the mean age was 69 years, with 28 male and 3 female patients; 20 of the patients were former smokers, 11 were non-smokers, 21 needed supplemental oxygen, and HRCT data were available for 24; mean FEV1.0 was 2,3 L, mean FVC was 2.7 L; the median time since IPF diagnosis was 2 years. The data presented cover a period from May 2012 (first patient in) until mid-2014. So far, Pirfenidone showed a favourable benefit/risk ratio in the majority of patients in this cohort.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".