Aerosolized lancovutide in adolescents (≥12 years) and adults with cystic fibrosis – a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lancovutide activates a chloride channel (TMEM-16A) other than the cystic fibrosis (CF) transmembrane conductance regulator protein and could benefit CF patients. METHODS: In this randomized, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial 161 patients ≥12 years with a confirmed diagnosis of CF were randomized to either placebo (saline) or active drug in 3 different dosing schemes of 2.5mg inhaled lancovutide (once daily, every other day or twice a week) for eight weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) percent predicted. Secondary endpoints included further lung function parameters (FEV1 (absolute), functional vital capacity percent predicted, forced expiratory flow percent predicted, pulse oximetry), quality of life assessment, pulmonary exacerbations, hospitalization due to pulmonary exacerbations, time to first pulmonary exacerbation, duration of anti-inflammatory, mucolytic or antibiotic treatment, and safety. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the change in FEV1 percent predicted, quality of life, other lung function parameters, pulmonary exacerbations or requirement of additional treatment between groups. Overall, the inhalation of lancovutide was safe although a higher rate of adverse events, especially related to the respiratory system, occurred as compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Lancovutide did not improve FEV1 percent predicted when compared to placebo (NCT00671736).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".