Optimising experimental research in respiratory diseases: an ERS statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental models are critical for the understanding of lung health and disease and are indispensable for drug development. However, the pathogenetic and clinical relevance of the models is often unclear. Further, the use of animals in biomedical research is controversial from an ethical perspective. The objective of this task force was to issue a statement with research recommendations about lung disease models by facilitating in-depth discussions between respiratory scientists, and to provide an overview of the literature on the available models. Focus was put on their specific benefits and limitations. This will result in more efficient use of resources and greater reduction in the numbers of animals employed, thereby enhancing the ethical standards and translational capacity of experimental research. The task force statement addresses general issues of experimental research (ethics, species, sex, age,ex vivoandin vitromodels, gene editing). The statement also includes research recommendations on modelling asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung infections, acute lung injury and pulmonary hypertension. The task force stressed the importance of using multiple models to strengthen validity of results, the need to increase the availability of human tissues and the importance of standard operating procedures and data quality.
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 | 0.382 | 0.264 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.067 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".