ArticleERJ open research2025
Progression of interstitial lung disease after the Envisia Genomic Classifier.
Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cryobiopsy at the dawn of fibrosis: unlocking early diagnosis and therapeutic windows.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Genomic classifier: biomarker for progression in interstitial lung disease.ERJ open research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) represents a heterogenous group of diseases that have substantial morbidity and mortality. The Envisia Genomic Classifier (EGC) is a test that analyses RNA derived from transbronchial biopsy (TBBx) samples to make a positive or negative genomic usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP) designation. Our study assesses the ability for the EGC to predict progression of disease, with a longer duration of follow-up than previous studies. Methods: Patients referred for cryobiopsy for outpatient workup of ILD concurrently had TBBx and EGC testing performed. We performed a retrospective analysis to assess differences in progression of disease between EGC-positive and negative patients, applying Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests. Confidence in ILD diagnosis before and after the EGC result was also noted, and the difference in confidence levels was assessed by a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: 82 patient cases were analysed. EGC-positive patients had a shorter progression-free survival (PFS) than EGC-negative patients, (p<0.0001), with 622 Conclusion: EGC positivity predicts worse ILD progression over a sustained follow-up period. The ability to predict worse prediction early in the ILD course without the need for surgical biopsy would have significant clinical impact.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.