Late Breaking Abstract - Endobronchial Valves for Severe Emphysema – 12-month Results of the EMPROVE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report 12-month endpoint results of the EMPROVE study, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that assessed safety and effectiveness of the Spiration® Valve System (SVS) compared to standard medical care in patients with severe emphysema. 172 subjects with hyperinflation and severe dyspnea without interlobar collateral ventilation determined by HCRT were randomized (2:1) to either treatment (SVS valves and medical management, N=113) or control (medical management alone, N=59). Target lobe treatment, based on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) was 70% upper lobe and 30% lower lobe resulting in a mean target lobe volume reduction of 53%. Lung function, disease specific health status and dyspnea scores reached statistical and clinically meaningful difference between the study groups. Mean ±95% Bayesian Credible Interval, PP = Posterior Probability; SGRQ – St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, mMRC – Modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score. Through 12-months, 16.9% of control group patients had thoracic serious adverse events compared to 38.9% of the treatment group. Early onset pneumothorax rate (14.2%), a recognized marker for target lobe volume reduction was the main adverse event in the treatment group. This study demonstrates that selecting patients for bronchoscopic lung volume reduction by HRCT assessment results in durable effectiveness through 12 months.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".