Immune-Modulation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Current Concepts and Future Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is caused by the chronic inhalation of toxic particles and gases that are primarily but not exclusively derived from cigarette smoke that may be either actively or passively inhaled, which initiates a persistent innate and adaptive immune response in the lung. This immune response is associated with an aberrant tissue repair and remodeling process that results in varying degrees of chronic inflammation with excess production of mucus in the central airways and permanent destruction of the smaller conducting airways and gas exchanging surface in the peripheral lung. Currently, the primary aims of treatment in COPD are bronchodilation (inhaled short- and long-acting β-agonist and antimuscarinic therapies), to control symptoms and nonspecific broad-acting anti-inflammatory agents (inhaled and oral corticosteroids, phosphor-di-esterase inhibitors, and macrolides). That provide symptomatic relief but have little or no impact on either disease progression or mortality. As our understanding of the immune pathogenesis of the COPD improves, available immune modulation therapies have the potential to alter or interfere with damaging immune pathways, thereby slowing relentless progression of lung tissue destruction. The purpose of this brief review is to discuss our current understanding of the immune pathogenesis of both the airways and parenchymal injury as well as the dysfunctional tissue repair process to propose immune modulating interventions in an attempt to stabilize or return these pathological changes to their normal state. The ultimate goal of the immune modulation therapy is to improve both morbidity and mortality associated 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".