Bexotegrast in people with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF): a plain language summary of publication of the INTEGRIS-IPF study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is this summary about? This plain language summary shares results from a clinical study called INTEGRIS-IPF that was published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in 2024. This study looked at a medicine called bexotegrast (beck-so-teh-grast) as a possible treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (i-dee-uh-pa-thick pul-muh-ner-ee fie-bro-sis; IPF). Bexotegrast is an investigational medicine, which means that it is being studied and has not yet been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for people with IPF to take as a treatment. IPF is a chronic, progressive lung disease that makes it hard to breathe and gets worse over time. There is no cure for IPF, treatment includes symptom management and consideration for the use of nintedanib or pirfenidone, which may decrease the pace of disease progression. The study compared bexotegrast to a placebo (a treatment that looks identical to the medicine but has no medicinal effect) to look at how well it works and how safe it is in treating people with IPF. Most people in the study also took one of two medicines that are already approved by the FDA for IPF, pirfenidone or nintedanib.
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 | 0.015 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".