Asbestos-related Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the changes over time in the pattern and extent of parenchymal abnormalities in asbestos-exposed workers after cessation of exposure and to compare 3 proposed semiquantitative methods with a careful side-by-side comparison of the initial and the follow-up computed tomography (CT) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 52 male asbestos workers (mean age+/-SD, 62.2 y+/-8.2) who had baseline high-resolution CT after cessation of exposure and follow-up CT 3 to 5 years later. Two independent thoracic radiologists quantified the findings according to the scoring systems proposed by Huuskonen, Gamsu, and Sette and then did a side-by-side comparison of the 2 sets of scans without awareness of the dates of the CT scans. RESULTS: There was no difference in the prevalence of the 2 most common parenchymal abnormalities (centrilobular small dotlike or branching opacities and interstitial lines) between the initial and follow-up CT scans. Honeycombing (20%) and traction bronchiectasis and bronchiolectasis (50%) were seen more commonly on the follow-up CT than on the initial examination (10% and 33%, respectively) (P=0.01). Increased extent of parenchymal abnormalities was evident on side-by-side comparison in 42 (81%) patients but resulted in an increase in score in at least 1 semiquantitative system in only 16 (31%) patients (all P>0.01, signed test). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with previous asbestos exposure show evidence of progression of disease on CT at 3 to 5 years follow-up but this progression is usually not detected by the 3 proposed semiquantitative scoring schemes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".