MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342116951 · doi:10.1183/13993003.02060-2015

Domiciliary exhaled nitric oxide and eosinophilic airway inflammation in adults with asthma

2016· letter· en· W2342116951 on OpenAlexaff
Catriona Ruth Nanda, Amisha Singapuri, Marcia Soares, William Monteiro, Salman Siddiqui, Sherif Gonem

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsExhaled nitric oxideMedicineEosinophilicSputumAsthmaAirwayNitric oxideInflammationExhalationImmunologyInternal medicinePathologyAnesthesiaSpirometryTuberculosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sputum eosinophils are the gold standard measure of eosinophilic airway inflammation and there is strong evidence that titrating corticosteroid therapy to sputum eosinophils reduces the rate of asthma exacerbations [1]. However, this measurement is time consuming and requires specific technical expertise. Exhaled nitric oxide ( F eNO) is a noninvasive surrogate marker of eosinophilic airway inflammation that may be measured using small portable devices. Studies of using F eNO to titrate therapy have yielded mixed results [2, 3]. However, it is possible that one-off clinic readings may not be the best method of utilising F eNO, and the home monitoring potential of F eNO has not yet been fully explored. Exhaled nitric oxide home monitoring is a promising surrogate marker of eosinophilic airway inflammation in asthma

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207