Prevalence and characteristics of progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease in a prospective registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (PF-ILD) is characterised by progressive physiological, symptomatic and/or radiographic worsening. The real-world prevalence and characteristics of PF-ILD remain uncertain. METHODS: Patients were enrolled from the Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis between 2015 and 2020. PF-ILD was defined as a relative forced vital capacity (FVC) decline ≥10%, death, lung transplantation or any two of: relative FVC decline ≥5% and <10%, worsening respiratory symptoms or worsening fibrosis on computed tomography of the chest, all within 24 months of diagnosis. Time-to-event analysis compared progression between key diagnostic subgroups. Characteristics associated with progression were determined by multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 2746 patients with fibrotic ILD (mean±sd age 65±12 years; 51% female), 1376 (50%) met PF-ILD criteria in the first 24 months of follow-up. PF-ILD occurred in 427 (59%) patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), 125 (58%) with fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP), 281 (51%) with unclassifiable ILD (U-ILD) and 402 (45%) with connective tissue disease-associated ILD (CTD-ILD). Compared with IPF, time to progression was similar in patients with HP (hazard ratio (HR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.79-1.17), but was delayed in patients with U-ILD (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.96) and CTD-ILD (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56-0.74). Background treatment varied across diagnostic subtypes, with 66% of IPF patients receiving antifibrotic therapy, while immunomodulatory therapy was utilised in 49%, 61% and 37% of patients with CHP, CTD-ILD and U-ILD, respectively. Increasing age, male sex, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and lower baseline pulmonary function were independently associated with progression. CONCLUSIONS: Progression is common in patients with fibrotic ILD, and is similarly prevalent in HP and IPF. Routinely collected variables help identify patients at risk for progression and may guide therapeutic strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".