MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284972381 · doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217994

Longitudinal changes in sputum and blood inflammatory mediators during FeNO suppression testing

2022· article· en· W4284972381 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Couillard, Rahul Shrimanker, Samuel Lemaire‐Paquette, Gareth Hynes, Catherine Borg, Clare Connolly, Samantha Thulborn, Angela Moran, Sarah Poole, Sophie Morgan, Timothy J. Powell, Ian Pavord, Timothy Hinks

Bibliographic record

VenueThorax · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversity of OxfordWellcome TrustSanofi GenzymeNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSanofi
KeywordsMedicineExhaled nitric oxideSputumEosinophilAsthmaImmunologyEosinophiliaCorticosteroidInternal medicineGastroenterologySpirometryPathologyTuberculosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To explore whether fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) non-suppression identifies corticosteroid resistance, we analysed inflammatory mediator changes during a FeNO suppression test with monitored high-intensity corticosteroid therapy. In linear mixed-effects models analysed over time, the 15 clinically distinct ‘suppressors’ (ie, ≥ 42% FeNO suppression) normalised Asthma Control Questionnaire scores (mean±SD, start to end of test: 2.8±1.4 to 1.4±0.9, p<0.0001) and sputum eosinophil counts (median (IQR), start to end of test: 29% (6%–41%) to 1% (1%–5%), p=0.0003) while significantly decreasing sputum prostaglandin D 2 (254 (89–894) to 93 (49–209) pg/mL, p=0.004) and numerically decreasing other type-2 cytokine, chemokine and alarmin levels. In comparison, the 19 non-suppressors had persistent sputum eosinophilia (10% (1%–67%) despite high-intensity therapy) with raised end-test inflammatory mediator levels (1.9 (0.9–2.8)-fold greater than suppressors). FeNO non-suppression during monitored treatment implies biological corticosteroid resistance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoraxSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207