Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eosinophilia in sputum is an important finding in patients with chronic cough, as it identifies a treatable trait with available therapy that is well tolerated and can be effective. While most patients have airway hyperresponsiveness or airway obstruction which define asthma, an important number of cases lack these features of bronchoconstriction but sputum induction still demonstrates excess eosinophilia, indicating eosinophilic bronchitis without asthma. Unfortunately, this test is largely limited to research centers and speciality cough clinics, but associated measures of allergic airway inflammation can be used to support the diagnosis. While the mechanisms that initiate and drive non-asthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis (NAEB) are not well understood, there is emerging evidence that eosinophils and inflammatory mediators are important contributors of nerve sensitivity, a hallmark of chronic cough. Inhaled steroids form the major treatment used in non-asthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis (NAEB). Novel targeted therapies for asthma known as biologics are likely to be tried in the common and debilitating condition of chronic cough, while their efficacy in NAEB is yet to be seen.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".