MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1690287856 · doi:10.1155/2009/763018

Computed Tomographic Scan Evaluation of Pulmonary Blastomycosis

2009· article· en· W1690287856 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Ronald, Jacek Strzelczyk, Sean Moore, Elly Trepman, Mary Cheang, Bill Limerick, Lyle Wiebe, Pete Sarsfield, Kerry Macdonald, Michael P. Meyers, John M. Embil

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPleural and Pulmonary Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlastomycosisComputed tomographicComputed tomographyMedicineRadiologyMedical physicsNuclear medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Blastomycosis is an uncommon granulomatous pulmonary and extrapulmonary infectious disease caused by the thermally dimorphic fungus Blastomyces dermatitidis. Diagnosis may be delayed or difficult because of varied presentation. The characteristics of blastomycosis on computed tomographic (CT) scan of the chest are not well characterized. METHODS: The images from 34 chest CT scans from patients with confirmed pulmonary blastomycosis were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: The most common CT findings were air bronchograms in 22 patients (65%), consolidation in 21 patients (62%), nodules (smaller than 3 cm) in 21 patients (62%) and lymph node enlargement (mediastinal and hilar nodes combined) in 12 patients (35%). Only four patients (12%) had a miliary pattern. CONCLUSIONS: A specific abnormality characteristic of pulmonary blastomycosis was not identified on CT scanning. The diagnosis can only be made in the context of a high index of clinical suspicion with histological or culture confirmation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical MicrobiologySame topicPleural and Pulmonary DiseasesFrench-language works237,207