Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of fibrosis with emphysema is confused by the existence of two very different clinical/pathological scenarios: first, cases in which a diffuse fibrosing interstitial pneumonia, most commonly usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), occurs in a patient with emphysema. This combination is largely of clinical interest because of its effects on pulmonary function and pulmonary hypertension, but can produce unusual appearances in surgical lung biopsies when the fibrotic areas are wrapped around emphysematous spaces. However, the underlying morphology of emphysema and UIP or other interstitial lung disease remains unchanged. Radiological consultation is often helpful to show that the patient has both lesions; secondly, cases in which there is localized fibrosis that is part of emphysema, or related to respiratory bronchiolitis, or both. These lesions have been called 'respiratory bronchiolitis' (RB), 'respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease' (RB-ILD), 'airspace enlargement with fibrosis', 'RB-ILD with fibrosis' and 'clinically occult interstitial fibrosis in smokers', but are probably all the same entity. Such changes are associated only rarely with the physiological or radiological features of an interstitial lung disease. Care should be taken when describing these lesions in biopsies so as not to give the impression that a diffuse interstitial lung disease is present.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".