MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152894658 · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2021.04.013

Eosinophilic and Noneosinophilic Asthma

2021· article· en· W3152894658 on OpenAlexafffund
Liam G. Heaney, Luis Pérez de Llano, Mona Al‐Ahmad, Vibeke Backer, John Busby, Giorgio Walter Canonica, George Christoff, Borja G. Cosío, J. Mark FitzGerald, Enrico Heffler, Takashi Iwanaga, D.J. Jackson, Andrew Menzies‐Gow, Nikolaos G. Papadopoulos, Andriana Ι. Papaioannou, Paul Pfeffer, Todor A. Popov, Celeste Porsbjerg, Chin Kook Rhee, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Yuji Tohda, Eileen Wang, Michael E. Wechsler, Marianna Alacqua, Alan Altraja, Leif Bjermer, Unnur Steina Björnsdóttir, Arnaud Bourdin, Guy Brusselle, Roland Buhl, Richard W. Costello, Mark Hew, Mariko Siyue Koh, Sverre Lehmann, Lauri Lehtimäki, Matthew Peters, Camille Taillé, Christian Taube, Trung N. Tran, James Zangrilli, Lakmini Bulathsinhala, Victoria Carter, Isha Chaudhry, Neva Eleangovan, Naeimeh Hosseini, Marjan Kerkhof, Ruth Murray, Chris Price, David Price

Bibliographic record

VenueCHEST Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUCB PharmaJanssen PharmaceuticalsNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation ProgrammeSanofi GenzymeSeqirusAKL Research and DevelopmentTeijin PharmaUniversity of British ColumbiaAstellas PharmaDaiichi-SankyoSingapore General HospitalOptimum Patient CareAstraZenecaAllergy TherapeuticsRegeneron PharmaceuticalsMylanMeiji Seika PharmaHAL AllergyMedical Research CouncilMeso Scale DiagnosticsTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesHandokTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyDanoneNovartisMedImmuneSanofiGlaxoSmithKlineMerckRespiratory Effectiveness GroupChiesi FarmaceuticiBoehringer IngelheimAmgenGenentechBritish Lung FoundationPfizerRocheAstellas Pharma US
KeywordsAsthmaEosinophilicMedicineImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Phenotypic characteristics of patients with eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma are not well characterized in global, real-life severe asthma cohorts. Research Question What is the prevalence of eosinophilic and noneosinophilic phenotypes in the population with severe asthma, and can these phenotypes be differentiated by clinical and biomarker variables? Study Design and Methods This was an historical registry study. Adult patients with severe asthma and available blood eosinophil count (BEC) from 11 countries enrolled in the International Severe Asthma Registry (January 1, 2015-September 30, 2019) were categorized according to likelihood of eosinophilic phenotype using a predefined gradient eosinophilic algorithm based on highest BEC, long-term oral corticosteroid use, elevated fractional exhaled nitric oxide, nasal polyps, and adult-onset asthma. Demographic and clinical characteristics were defined at baseline (ie, 1 year before or closest to date of BEC). Results One thousand seven hundred sixteen patients with prospective data were included; 83.8% were identified as most likely (grade 3), 8.3% were identified as likely (grade 2), and 6.3% identified as least likely (grade 1) to have an eosinophilic phenotype, and 1.6% of patients showed a noneosinophilic phenotype (grade 0). Eosinophilic phenotype patients (ie, grades 2 or 3) showed later asthma onset (29.1 years vs 6.7 years; P < .001) and worse lung function (postbronchodilator % predicted FEV 1 , 76.1% vs 89.3%; P = .027) than those with a noneosinophilic phenotype. Patients with noneosinophilic phenotypes were more likely to be women (81.5% vs 62.9%; P = .047), to have eczema (20.8% vs 8.5%; P = .003), and to use anti-IgE (32.1% vs 13.4%; P = .004) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (50.0% vs 28.0%; P = .011) add-on therapy. Interpretation According to this multicomponent, consensus-driven, and evidence-based eosinophil gradient algorithm (using variables readily accessible in real life), the severe asthma eosinophilic phenotype was more prevalent than previously identified and was phenotypically distinct. This pragmatic gradient algorithm uses variables readily accessible in primary and specialist care, addressing inherent issues of phenotype heterogeneity and phenotype instability. Identification of treatable traits across phenotypes should improve therapeutic precision.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations265
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCHEST JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207