Bronchial collapse during bronchoalveolar lavage in horses is an indicator of lung inflammation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: The bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) procedure can return variable volumes of fluid, possibly depending on the presence of bronchial collapse during fluid aspiration and on the severity of lung inflammation. OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that horses with bronchial collapse during BAL are at higher risk of having severe lung inflammation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective field study. METHODS: Bronchial collapse was graded using a new simple scoring method (0, 1 or 2) during a standardised BAL procedure in the field on 131 horses with normal, mild/moderate or severe lower airway inflammation on cytology of BAL fluid. RESULTS: Of the 131 horses, 37 (28%), 55 (42%) and 39 (30%) horses had bronchial collapse scores of 0, 1 and 2, respectively. There was a difference in collapse scores between all the BAL inflammation categories (P<0.001). Severe collapse had a positive predictive value of 0.95 for both mild/moderate and severe BAL inflammation, with a prevalence of 63% and 20%, respectively. The BAL fluid return volume in the horses with severe collapse scores was lower than volumes in the partial (score 1/2) and no collapse (score 0/2) groups (P<0.001). The BAL fluid volume was negatively correlated with BAL neutrophil percentage (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Airway collapse during BAL is associated with airway inflammation and neutrophilia. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: During a standardised BAL procedure, clinicians can expect lung inflammation in horses that have bronchial collapse and bronchial collapse in horses with lung inflammation. Lung inflammation may be a contributing factor in the mechanism of bronchial collapse during BAL in horses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".