Effects of nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis by GAP stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted apost hocanalysis to assess the potential impact of GAP (gender, age, physiology) stage on the treatment effect of nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Outcomes were compared in patients at GAP stage IversusII/III at baseline in the INPULSIS® trials. At baseline, 500 patients were at GAP stage I (nintedanib 304, placebo 196), 489 were at GAP stage II (nintedanib 296, placebo 193) and 71 were at GAP stage III (nintedanib 38, placebo 33). In nintedanib-treated patients, the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) was similar in patients at GAP stage I and GAP stage II/III at baseline (−110.1 and −116.6 mL·year−1, respectively), and in both subgroups was lower than in placebo-treated patients (−218.5 and −227.6 mL·year−1, respectively) (treatment-by-time-by-subgroup interaction p=0.92). In the nintedanib group, the number of deaths was 43.8% of those predicted based on GAP stage (35versus79.9). In the placebo group, the number of deaths was 59.8% of those predicted based on GAP stage (33versus55.2). In conclusion, data from the INPULSIS® trials suggest that nintedanib has a similar beneficial effect on the rate of FVC decline in patients at GAP stage IversusII/III at baseline.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".