The clinical utility of elevated monocyte count in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale Higher peripheral blood monocyte count has been associated with disease progression and mortality in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (fILD), but with uncertainty regarding the strength of this association and the potential impact of confounding. This study aimed to characterise the associations of clinically ascertained peripheral blood monocyte count with survival and lung function decline in patients with fILD. Methods Patients with fILD enrolled in the prospective Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis (CARE-PF) with baseline complete blood count were included. Monocyte counts were analysed continuously and dichotomised ≥0.6 versus <0.6×10 9 cells·L −1 and ≥0.95 versus <0.95×10 9 cells·L −1 . Cox proportional hazards models, unadjusted and adjusted for age, sex, lung function, smoking and treatment, evaluated associations of monocytes with transplant-free survival. Survival analysis was repeated using the prospective PROFILE cohort. Unadjusted and adjusted linear mixed models evaluated association of monocyte count with annual decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted. Results In 1489 patients with fILD, higher monocyte count was associated with reduced transplant-free survival in unadjusted models, but not after adjustment for relevant confounders (continuous model, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.54–1.17; p=0.24; dichotomised at 0.6 cells·L −1 , HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72–1.10; p=0.29; and dichotomised at 0.95 cells·L −1 , HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68–1.26; p=0.62). Findings were consistent in the PROFILE external replication cohort. Monocyte count was not associated with FVC % decline in the full cohort or within fILD subtypes. Conclusions Peripheral blood monocyte count was not associated with transplant-free survival or lung function decline in this multicentre cohort study, indicating that it is not a reliable biomarker in fILD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".