ArticlePloS one2026
Electronic health record evidence suggests undercoding, underrecognition, and low antifibrotic use in progressive pulmonary fibrosis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProgressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) is a heterogeneous group of non-IPF ILDs characterized by fibrotic progression and poor prognosis. Antifibrotic therapies slow disease progression, yet widely variable real-world prevalence estimates suggest that PPF may be undercoded and potentially underdiagnosed. In preliminary TriNetX analyses using ICD-10 code J84.170, PPF prevalence was markedly lower than previous estimates. To explore a potentially undiagnosed and/or uncoded PPF cohort, we adapted a published PPF proxy algorithm and compared demographic, clinical, and treatment differences between formally coded patients and proxy-identified patients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX U.S. Collaborative Network from 2021 to 2024. Coded PPF was defined by J84.170, excluding IPF. Three proxy PPF cohorts-sensitive, specific, and strict-were adapted from Olson et al. using the closest available TriNetX variables, combining non-IPF ILD diagnoses with progression criteria. Prevalence, antifibrotic use, demographics, and ILD subtype distributions were compared. Outcomes included respiratory failure, death, and lung transplant. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated. Propensity matching included age, sex, race, and BMI; balance was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMD < 0.10).
resultsAmong 57,193,009 adults, coded PPF prevalence was 3.7 per 100,000 versus 250, 124, and 32 per 100,000 in the sensitive, specific, and strict proxy cohorts, respectively. Antifibrotic use was 18.3% in coded PPF, compared with 3.2% in the sensitive cohort (OR 0.15), 5.6% in the specific cohort (OR 0.34), and 8.6% in the strict cohort (OR 0.64). IPF treatment was higher than PPF treatment (28.5%; OR 1.97). Demographics and ILD subtype distributions were broadly similar, and clinical outcomes were comparable between coded and proxy cohorts. Relative to PPF, IPF had lower hazards of respiratory failure (HR 0.56) and death (HR 0.52), but higher transplant rates (HR 1.93).
conclusionsProxy-defined cohorts identified clinically similar but largely untreated populations, supporting the possibility of an uncoded and/or unrecognized PPF cohort. EHR-based proxy algorithms may serve as scalable screening tools to identify high-risk patients for further clinical evaluation. These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the use of EHR-derived proxy markers and evolving awareness and coding practices for PPF over time. Further validation with chart review and integrated clinical data is needed.
Indexed as
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.