Predictors of Histologic Response using Antibodies Against Interleukin-5 in Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eosinophilic Esophagitis is a chronic immune condition of the esophagus characterized by inflammation and the presence of eosinophils (a type of white blood cell) in the esophagus[1]. Eosinophilia is defined as an elevated number of eosinophils which results in inflammation. The typical onset of this disease occurs in childhood, with symptoms that vary depending on the age of onset. Severity of disease is evaluated based on features from endoscopy and histologic findings from biopsies obtained from endoscopy [1]. Histology is the study of cells and tissue as they appear under a microscope. Treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis include topical steroids (used to treat many inflammatory conditions) and proton pump inhibitors (a group of medications that reduce acid production from cells that line the stomach), although few studies have been done prospectively in children. A recent study evaluated predictors of histologic response to steroid therapy among adult patients and identified baseline dilation was identified as the only predictor of histologic response to steroid treatment [2]. Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is a protein produced by the immune system which are known to play a key role in allergic conditions. Anti IL-5 monoclonal antibody drugs reduce the effect of IL-5. However, it is unclear what factors may influence histologic response to anti-IL-5 therapy in pediatric patients. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate baseline clinical, histologic, and endoscopic predictors of histologic response among pediatric patients using data from a clinical trial evaluating mepolizumab (an anti-IL-5) for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis. Given the importance of histologic features of disease in eosinophilic esophagitis, patients may benefit from the knowledge generated from this study as it may optimize treatment and disease management. For example, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a type of endoscopic procedure that allows physicians to evaluate the esophagus, stomach and part of the small intestine. EGDs are an invasive procedure and understanding potential predictors of response could potentially reduce the frequency of this procedure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".