MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic Interaction Between Inflammatory and Clinical Risk Factors for Asthma Attacks: Findings from the ORACLE2 Patient-level Meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4410276475 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Mailhot-Larouche, Fleur L. Meulmeester, Philippe Lachapelle, C.A. Celis-Preciado, Samuel Lemaire‐Paquette, Sanjay Ramakrishnan, Michael E. Wechsler, Guy Brusselle, J. Corren, Mira Holliday, Sarah Diver, Christopher E. Brightling, Margarida Castro, Nicola A. Hanania, David J. Jackson, Nicolas Martin, A. Laugerud, Emilio Santoro, C. Compton, Megan Hardin, Cécile Holweg, A. Subhashini, Timothy Hinks, Richard Beasley, Jacob K. Sont, W. Steyerberg, Ian Pavord, Simon Couillard, ORACLE

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsHôpital FleurimontUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Preventing attacks is a key goal in asthma management. The type-2 inflammatory biomarkers blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) are established and modifiable risk factors. Given the complexity and multifaceted nature of asthma, we hypothesized that their prognostic value might vary based on interactions with clinical risk factors. METHODS: We analyzed data from the OxfoRd Asthma attaCk risk scaLE (ORACLE2) patient-level meta-analysis, which includes placebo participants from 22 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of fixed treatment regimens on severe asthma attack rates over a minimum of 24 weeks. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used for missing values in 10 iterations. Multivariable negative binomial models were fit to assess interactions between inflammatory biomarkers (FeNO and BEC) and other key risk factors, such as the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) treatment step, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score, attack history, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). A Benjamini-Hochberg procedure adjusted for multiplicity of testing (false discovery rate (FDR)<0.05 significant). Spline curves were plotted to visualize significant interactions. As an exploratory analysis, other potential interactions between asthma attacks risk factors and baseline characteristics were evaluated (FDR<0.05). RESULTS: The 6,513 analysed participants experienced 4615 attacks over 5482 person·years. BEC (per 10-fold increase) was found to interact with FEV1 (per 10% decrease) (interaction term: 1.11 [1.03; 1.21], p-value = 0.01). FeNO (per 10-fold increase) negatively interact with a low treatment step (GINA step 1-2 versus GINA step 3-5) (0.28 [0.11; 0.68], p-value = 0.005) and positively interact with a history of severe attacks in the last 12 months (2.42 [1.51; 3.87], p-value = 2×10⁻⁴). The spline curves illustrated the prognostic value of these inflammatory biomarkers according to subgroups based on the identified interactions (Figure A-C). In an exploratory analysis, a strong positive interaction between Immunoglobulin E (IgE) (per 10-fold increase) and a positive history of nasal polyposis was identified (1.58 [1.25; 1.98], p-value = 9×10⁻⁵). The spline curve illustrated the dichotomous prognostic value of IgE on asthma attack risk according to the presence (n=584) or absence (n=3522) of nasal polyposis (Figure D). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis underscores the complex interactions between inflammatory biomarkers and other asthma attack risk factors. The prognostic value of BEC is stronger in those with reduced lung function, while FeNO's prognostic value depends on recent attack history and treatment step. A potential prognostic interaction between IgE and nasal polyposis was also identified. Registration:PROSPERO-CRD42021245337

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.036
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→