MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291692025 · doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207894

Lung clearance index response in patients with CF with class III CFTR mutations

2016· article· en· W2291692025 on OpenAlexaff
Mica Kane, Tanja Gonska, Renée Jensen, Julie Avolio, Michelle Klingel, Sanja Stanojevic, Félix Ratjen

Bibliographic record

VenueThorax · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick Children
FundersVertex Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsMedicineLungLung functionCystic fibrosisIndex (typography)Internal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ivacaftor (KALYDECO) is a cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) potentiator that increases transmembrane chloride flux in vitro and leads to significant benefits in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) with class III gating mutations.1–5 Ivacaftor is associated with sustained improvement in FEV1 and weight as well as reduced time to next pulmonary exacerbation.5–7 It has also been shown that 4 weeks of ivacaftor improves the lung clearance index (LCI) in patients with CF with preserved lung function.8 It is presently unclear whether LCI, a measure of ventilation inhomogeneity, provides additional information among patients with more impaired lung function as well as whether the sustained effectiveness of ivacaftor as demonstrated by improvements in the previously mentioned outcomes is also evident in the LCI response. The aim of this observational study was to assess the LCI before and after initiation of ivacaftor treatment over 6 months in patients with CF with a wider range of …

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoraxSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207