Biomarker Development for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: From Discovery to Clinical Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality in the world. Regrettably, there are no biomarkers to objectively diagnose COPD exacerbations, which are the major drivers of hospitalization and deaths from COPD. Moreover, there are no biomarkers to guide therapeutic choices or to risk stratify patients for imminent exacerbations and no objective biomarkers of disease activity or disease progression. Although there has been a tremendous investment in COPD biomarker discovery over the past 2 decades, clinical translation and implementation have not matched these efforts. In this article, we outline the challenges of biomarker development in COPD and provide an overview of a developmental pipeline that may be able to surmount these challenges and bring novel biomarker solutions to accelerate therapeutic discoveries and to improve the care and outcomes of the millions of individuals worldwide with COPD.
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 | 0.104 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".