MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3087891392 · doi:10.1164/rccm.202008-3106le

Reply to Lipworth <i>et al.</i> : Don’t Forget about Facilitatory Effects of Corticosteroids on β2-Adrenoceptors in Acute Asthma

2020· letter· en· W3087891392 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Moran, Sanjay Ramakrishnan, Catherine Borg, Clare Connolly, Simon Couillard, Christine Mwasuku, Ian Pavord, Timothy Hinks, Lauri Lehtimäki

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversity of OxfordTaysNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchEdith Cowan UniversityWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaInhaled corticosteroidsβ2 adrenergic receptorInternal medicineAgonistReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Dr. Lipworth and colleagues for their interest in our work published recently in the Journal (1). They rightly point out that the biology of asthma attacks is more complex than blood eosinophils alone and that corticosteroids have a wide range of other potentially relevant antiinflammatory effects. However, local treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is usually the mainstay of patients with frequent eosinophilic exacerbations, and therefore in the great majority of patients, the key question is what oral corticosteroids (OCS) add to ICS in an acute attack (2) and whether this effect is seen with benralizumab. We suggest that depletion of circulating eosinophils is the only effect OCS are likely to have that are not shared with ICS (3).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0400.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→