Chronic breathlessness in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a major challenge for caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is one of the most common forms of interstitial lung disease, with a median survival time of two to five years. Most patients with IPF experience chronic breathlessness, which is closely linked to poor perceived quality of life and significant restriction of daily activities; therefore, effective management of this distressing symptom is a major goal of patient care. Areas covered: This report summarizes the physiology of IPF during rest and exercise, outlines current concepts of the mechanisms of breathlessness, and provides a physiological rationale for optimal management of individual patients. It also examines the evidence for efficacy of a number of therapeutic interventions currently at our disposal for the management of breathlessness in IPF, which aim to reduce respiratory neural drive, reduce worsening of mechanical load, and alter central perception. Expert commentary: The current evidence supporting general measures in relieving chronic breathlessness is weak; hence, more carefully designed prospective studies are required.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".