Increased IL-33+ and ST2+ alveolar macrophages in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: IL-33 levels are increased in COPD patients. The contribution of alveolar macrophages (AMs) to IL-33 expression has not been quantified in COPD. Aims: To quantify the number of IL-33+ and ST2+ (IL-33 receptor) AMs in COPD patients versus controls. Methods: Using lung resection samples from non-smokers (NS, n=14), smoking controls (SC, n=28) and COPD patients (GOLD I-III, n=47), we quantified the number of IL-33+ and ST2+ AMs using single-label immunohistochemistry. The number of positive AMs were counted across 15 random fields of view. Results: The number of IL-33+ and ST2+ macrophages were significantly increased in SC and COPD compared to NS (p<0.05), with no differences between SC and COPD (Figure 1). The number of IL-33+ AMs were similar between current and ex-smokers. In contrast, the number of ST2+ AMs were higher in current versus ex-smokers (p<0.05). There was no relationship with disease severity. erj;66/suppl_69/PA4714/F1 F1 F1 Figure 1: No. of A) IL-33 and B) ST2 positive AMs in NS, SC and COPD Conclusion: Increased IL-33+ AMs in COPD may contribute to disease pathophysiology, particularly in distal airway remodelling. The IL-33-ST2 signalling axis in AMs may be modulated by current smoking.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
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".