Nintedanib plus Sildenafil in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: . That idea was tested in this trial. METHODS: of 35% or less of the predicted value to receive nintedanib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus sildenafil at a dose of 20 mg three times daily (nintedanib-plus-sildenafil group) or nintedanib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus placebo three times daily (nintedanib group) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the total score on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) at week 12 (the total score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse health-related quality of life). Secondary end points included measures of dyspnea and safety. RESULTS: A total of 274 patients underwent randomization. There was no significant difference in the adjusted mean change from baseline in the SGRQ total score at week 12 between the nintedanib-plus-sildenafil group and the nintedanib group (-1.28 points and -0.77 points, respectively; P=0.72). A benefit from sildenafil treatment was not observed with regard to dyspnea as measured with the use of the University of California, San Diego, Shortness of Breath Questionnaire. No new safety signals were observed, as compared with previous trials. CONCLUSIONS: of 35% or less of the predicted value, nintedanib plus sildenafil did not provide a significant benefit as compared with nintedanib alone. No new safety signals were identified with either treatment regimen in this population of patients. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; INSTAGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02802345 .).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".