Bronchodilator responsiveness in cystic fibrosis children treated for pulmonary exacerbations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cystic fibrosis (CF) pulmonary exacerbations (PEx) are associated with a significant drop in pulmonary function. The clinical value of measuring bronchodilator (BD) responsiveness during treatment for PEx to monitor or predict recovery of lung function is unclear. Methods A retrospective analysis of spirometry with BD response testing obtained during hospital admissions for PEx in pediatric CF patients. Repeated events were included for patients with BD testing during multiple admissions. Results Two hundred forty‐nine spirometries with BD testing in 102 patients were completed around Day 7 (Days 4–10) of hospital admission for treatment of CF PEx. Median (IQR) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was 70.6% predicted (58.1, 84.6) before the PEx event (best FEV1 in 6 months before admission), 54.4% (41.5, 66.9) at admission, 62.3% (48.4, 74.7) around Day 7 of admission and 67.1% predicted (53.8, 78.2) at the end of treatment. BD response around Day 7 correlated poorly with FEV1 before PEx (r = −.16, p = .02) and did not correlate with recovery to baseline FEV1 at end of treatment (r = .08, p = .22). Only 23/249 (9%) individual tests had a BD response in FEV1 of ≥12% and 200 ml. BD response was not related to age or severity of lung disease and led to an immediate change in clinical management in only four cases. Conclusions Significant BD response in CF patients treated for PEx is rare, shows poor correlation with baseline pulmonary function and does not correlate with the recovery of FEV1 with treatment. These data suggest that routine testing for BD response is not indicated during PEx.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".