Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency: clarifying the role of the putative protective threshold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is the only readily identifiable monogenic cause of COPD. To date the only condition-specific treatment for AATD-associated COPD is weekly administration of intravenous plasma-purified human alpha-1 antitrypsin (IV-AAT). Uncertainties regarding which AATD genotypes should benefit from IV-AAT persist. IV-AAT is costly and involves weekly administration of a plasma product. Much of the risk stratification has been centred around the long-accepted hypothesis of a “putative protective threshold” of 11 µM (0.57 g·L−1) AAT in serum. This hypothesis has become central to the paradigm of AATD care, although its derivation and accuracy for defining risk of disease remain unclear. We reviewed the literature and examined the association between the 11 µM threshold and clinical outcomes to provide context and insight into the issues surrounding this topic. We found no data demonstrating an increased risk of COPD dependent on the 11 µM threshold. Moreover, an abundance of recent clinical data examining this threshold refutes the hypothesis. Conversely, the use of 11 µM as a treatment target in appropriate ZZ individuals is supported by clinical evidence, although more refined dosing regimens are being explored. Continued use of the 11 µM threshold as a determinant of clinical risk is questionable, perpetuates inappropriate AAT-augmentation practices, may drive increased healthcare expenditure and should not be used as an indicator for commencing treatment. Genotype represents a more proven indicator of risk, with ZZ and rare ZZ-equivalent genotypes independently associated with COPD. New and better risk assessment models are needed to provide individuals diagnosed with AATD with reliable risk estimation and optimised treatment goals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".