Association between elevated peripheral blood eosinophil count and respiratory outcomes in adults with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundElevated blood eosinophil counts are linked to worse outcomes in asthma and COPD, but have yet to be well characterized in CF. We hypothesized that higher stable visit blood eosinophil counts are associated with increased rates of lung function decline and pulmonary exacerbations (PEx).MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of adult CF patients (≥19 years) enrolled from 2012 to 2018 in a prospective cohort study focused on blood biomarkers. We included individuals with at least one year of follow-up post-stable visit blood draw and compared clinical characteristics by blood eosinophil count (<300 cells/µL vs. ≥300 cells/µL). We used multivariate mixed-effects linear regression to estimate annual change in ppFEV1. Multivariable poisson and linear regression models were used to estimate rate of PEx requiring IV antibiotics and to compare CF Respiratory Symptom Diary-Chronic Respiratory Infection Symptom Scores (CFRSD-CRISS), respectively.ResultsOf 109 patients, 17 (15.6%) had eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µL. After adjustment for age, sex, BMI, and baseline ppFEV1, there was no association between high vs. low eosinophil group and rates of lung function decline (difference in slope -0.04%/y; 95% CI -1.5 to +1.4) or rates of PEx requiring IV antibiotics (IRR 1.46; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.65). The high eosinophil group had a higher mean CFRSD-CRISS score at stable visit (adjusted mean difference 9.3; 95% CI 2.9 to 16.0).ConclusionsThe high eosinophil group experienced increased respiratory symptoms, but the rates of lung function decline and PEx were comparable between groups.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".