Old dilemma: asthma with irreversible airway obstruction or COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older asthmatic patients may develop fixed airway obstruction and clinical signs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We investigated the added value of pathological evaluation of bronchial biopsies to help differentiate asthma from COPD, taking into account smoking, age, and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use. Asthma and COPD patients (24 of each category) were matched for ICS use, age, FEV(1), and smoking habits. Five pulmonary and five general pathologists examined bronchial biopsies using an interactive website, without knowing patient information. They were asked to diagnose asthma or COPD on biopsy findings in both a pairwise and randomly mixed order of cases during four different phases, with intervals of 4-6 weeks, covering a maximal period of 36 weeks. Clinically concordant diagnoses of asthma or COPD varied between 63 %-73 %, without important differences between pairwise vs randomly mixed examination or between general vs pulmonary pathologists. The highest percentage of concordant diagnoses was in young asthmatic patients without ICS use and in COPD patients with ICS use. In non ICS users with fixed airway obstruction, a COPD diagnosis was favored if abnormal presence of glands, squamous metaplasia, and submucosal infiltrate was present and an asthma diagnosis in case of abnormal presence of goblet cells. In ICS users with fixed airway obstruction, abnormal presence of submucosal infiltrates, basement membrane thickening, eosinophils, and glands was associated with asthma. Histological characteristics in bronchial biopsies are reproducibly recognized by pathologists, yet the differentiation by histopathology between asthma and COPD is difficult without information about ICS use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".