MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414616244 · doi:10.1183/23120541.00616-2025

Neutrophilic asthma may not be a distinct endotype

2025· letter· en· W4414616244 on OpenAlexaff
Anurag Bhalla, Roma Sehmi, Parameswaran Nair, Manali Mukherjee

Bibliographic record

VenueERJ Open Research · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutrophiliaEndotypeAsthmaAirwayNeutrophileCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extract Heterogeneity in asthma is well recognised, with established airway inflammatory endotypes that aim to characterise underlying pathobiological mechanisms driving clinical outcomes [1]. Sputum cytometry subdivides airway inflammatory phenotypes into eosinophilic, neutrophilic, mixed granulocytic and pauci-granulocytic [2]. Although there has been significant advancement in the treatment of asthma patients with a type 2 (T2) high signature (defined based on systemic biomarkers including elevated blood eosinophils (>300 per μL), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (>50 ppb) or immunoglobulin E (>30 IU·mL−1)), limited treatment options are available for patients with a T2-low endotype (defined largely based on absence of systemic T2 biomarkers). This may be due to an imprecise definition of the T2-low endotype, which in most cases does not encompass airway eosinophilia (<2%), whether the eosinophilia is controlled by inhaled corticosteroids [3], or the presence of free eosinophil granules [4] or eosinophil proteins in airway macrophages [5].

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueERJ Open ResearchSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207