A pilot randomised clinical trial of mepolizumab in COPD with eosinophilic bronchitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airflow limitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with influx of various inflammatory cells ( e.g. eosinophils, neutrophils, lymphocytes, macrophages) into the airways. Approximately one-third of stable COPD patients and one in five COPD exacerbations are associated with eosinophilic bronchitis that usually responds to inhaled or ingested corticosteroids [1]. Specific anti-eosinophil agents like mepolizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody against interleukin 5 (IL-5), reduce severe asthma exacerbations and improve lung function [2–4]. The improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) is also associated with a decrease in biomarkers of airway remodelling, such as sputum hyaluronan and versican, over a 6-month treatment period [5]. It is not known if the same benefits are observed in patients with COPD and eosinophilia in whom the airflow obstruction is due to cigarette smoke-related bronchitis and emphysema. Eosinophils may not directly contribute to luminal obstruction in COPD although they may predict steroid response
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".