COPD biomarkers and phenotypes: opportunities for better outcomes with precision imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of chronic diseases have benefited from both imaging and personalised medicine, but unfortunately, for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), there has been little clinical uptake or recognition of the key advances in thoracic imaging that might help detect disease early, or, perhaps more importantly, might help develop and phenotype patients for novel or personalised therapies that may halt disease progression. We outline our vision for how computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging may be used to better inform COPD patient care, and, perhaps more importantly, how these may be used to help develop new therapies directed at early disease. We think that imaging and precision medicine should be considered and used together as "precision imaging" at specific stages of COPD when the major pathologies may be more responsive to therapy. While "precision medicine" is the tailoring of medical treatment to individual patients, we define "precision imaging" as the tailoring of specific therapies and interventions to individual patients with a detailed quantitative understanding of their specific imaging phenotypes and measurements. Finally, we stress the importance of "seeing" the pathology, because without this understanding, you can neither treat nor cure patients with COPD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".