Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: New Insights to Functional Characteristics at Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lung function of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has not been characterized in detail. objective: To characterize the heterogeneous physiological abnormalities that exist in patients with IPF during their initial clinical evaluation. METHODS: Lung function tests from 93 patients, performed within six months of the initial diagnosis of IPF, were obtained from a referral pulmonary function laboratory at a tertiary care hospital in Canada. A restrictive pattern was defined as total lung capacity (TLC) <95th percentile of predicted value. Patients with obstructive lung disease, lung cancer, emphysema and other restrictive lung diseases were excluded. RESULTS: On diagnosis, 73% of patients with IPF had a restrictive pattern, with a mean TLC of 72% of predicted. Mean forced vital capacity (FVC) was 71% and 44% of patients had an FVC <95th percentile. Mean diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) was 60% and DLCO⁄alveolar volume (VA) 92% of predicted. Increased severity of restriction - based on TLC - was associated with lower DLCO (74% of predicted in mild restriction and 39% of predicted in severe restriction) and higher forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)⁄FVC ratio (82% of predicted in mild restriction and 90% of predicted in severe restriction) but not with age (76 years in mild restriction and 69 years in severe restriction). Regardless of severity of restriction, the average DLCO⁄VA (≥86% of predicted) remained within normal limits. CONCLUSIONS: One in four patients with IPF had normal TLC and more than one-half had a normal FVC during initial evaluation. As the severity of the restriction increased, FEV1⁄FVC increased, DLCO decreased but DLCO⁄VA remained normal.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".