Eosinophils in asthma phenotypes: perpetrators or guilty by association?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
25 years after publication of a clinical trial in The Lancet on the anti-IL-5 antibody mepolizumab in individuals with allergic asthma, evidence has accumulated that the pathogenetic role of eosinophils is fundamentally different between asthma phenotypes. In the allergen-driven form of asthma, often starting in childhood or during adolescence (ie, early onset asthma), blood eosinophil counts are variable, mainly dependent on allergen exposure, and play only a minor role (as a so-called sidekick) in allergen-induced asthma symptoms. By contrast, eosinophils are persistently elevated and are crucial drivers of the disease in the intrinsic (eosinophilic) form of asthma, which typically starts in adulthood (ie, adult-onset asthma). These data suggest that eosinophilia should not be considered a treatable trait in people with chronic airway diseases, but only a complement to an accurate clinical diagnosis. This evidence has major implications for the diagnosis of asthma phenotypes and the treatment of asthma (eg, choice of the right biologic).
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".