Pulmonology: What You May Have Missed in 2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of pulmonology saw significant advances in 2023. The publications highlighted in this article address advances and changes in practice related to asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease, pleural disorders, and sleep-disordered breathing. One article reviews data examining the efficacy of vaccination against respiratory syncytial virus, a respiratory viral illness that has had devastating effects globally. Four studies evaluate the role of various therapies in COPD, including dupilumab, ensifentrine, pulmonary rehabilitation programs, and lung volume reduction versus endobronchial valves. Another study explores the effect on vascular events of positive-pressure ventilation in patients with sleep-disordered breathing and recent stroke. The use of combination therapy with rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil on progression-free survival in patients with nonspecific interstitial pneumonia is the topic of another study. We also highlight an update of clinical recommendations for the evaluation of patients with pleural disorders and a systematic review analyzing the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids as a supplement to dual therapy for COPD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.037 |
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".