Oesophageal dilatation on high-resolution CT chest in systemic sclerosis: What does it signify?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the significance of oesophageal dilatation on high-resolution CT (HRCT) chest in patients with systemic sclerosis. METHODS: We retrospectively retrieved the database of patients with systemic sclerosis seen at our hospital between January 2008 and January 2009. A total of 50 patients (46 women and four men) who had HRCT chest, pulmonary function testing and echocardiography within 1 month were included in the study. Peak pulmonary artery (PA) pressures and pulmonary function testing were charted. The HRCT chest was interpreted by a chest radiologist. Oesophageal dilatation was defined as a luminal coronal diameter of ≥9 mm in infra-aortic oesophagus. Extent of ground glass, reticulation and honeycombing was objectively scored. RESULTS: Statistical analysis using independent t-test showed that diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide was significantly lower (P = 0.042) and peak PA pressures were significantly higher (P = 0.045) in patients with oesophageal dilatation (n = 29) as compared with those without oesophageal dilatation (n = 21). The two cohorts had no significant difference in their total lung capacity and HRCT determined extent of interstitial lung disease. CONCLUSION: Patients with oesophageal dilatation on HRCT chest had significantly lower diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide and higher peak PA pressures, which suggest that these patients tend to have more severe pulmonary vascular disease.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".