Reassessing the Role of Eosinophils as a Biomarker in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood eosinophils measurement, as proxy for tissue eosinophils, has become an important biomarker for exacerbation risk and response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Its use to determine the pharmacological approach is recommended in the latest COPD guidelines. The potential role of blood eosinophils is mainly based on data derived from post-hoc and retrospective analyses that showed an association between increased blood eosinophils and risk of exacerbations, as well as mitigation of this risk with ICS. Yet other publications, including studies in real life COPD, do not confirm these assumptions. Moreover, anti-eosinophil therapy targeting interleukin (IL)-5 failed to reduce exacerbations in COPD patients with high blood eosinophils, which casts significant doubts on the role of eosinophils in COPD. Furthermore, a reduction of eosinophils might be harmful since COPD patients with relatively high eosinophils have better pulmonary function, better life quality, less infections and longer survival. These effects are probably linked to the role of eosinophils in the immune response against pathogens. In conclusion, in COPD, high blood eosinophils are widely used as a biomarker for exacerbation risk and response to ICS. However, much is yet to be learned about the reasons for the high eosinophil counts, their variations and their controversial effects on the fate of COPD patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".