Stability or improvement in forced vital capacity with nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
analyses of the distribution of changes in FVC in the INPULSIS® trials and FVC changes in the open-label extension trial INPULSIS®-ON in subgroups of patients based on whether patients had shown an improvement or no decline in FVC in INPULSIS®. Analyses were descriptive.Based on the annual rate of change in FVC, 158 of 638 patients (24.8%) treated with nintedanib and 38 of 423 patients (9.0%) treated with placebo had an improvement/no decline in FVC in the INPULSIS® trials. In patients whose FVC improved/did not decline, median (interquartile range) improvements in FVC at week 52 were 76.5 (31-152) mL and 57.5 (31-103) mL in the nintedanib and placebo groups, respectively. Changes in FVC from baseline to week 48 of INPULSIS®-ON were similar in patients whose FVC improved or declined in the preceding INPULSIS® trial.In the INPULSIS® trials, treatment with nintedanib resulted in a greater proportion of patients with IPF showing an improvement/no decline in FVC compared to taking placebo. Mechanisms underlying improvement in FVC in patients with IPF are unknown.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".