The repeatability of nonbronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage differential cell counts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airway inflammation in children can be assessed by nonbronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). Little is known about the repeatability of cell counts in the BAL obtained. Children (n=43) attending for elective surgery were studied. Cell counts were obtained following a nonbronchoscopic lavage. Two samples were obtained with either: 1) the catheter wedged in the same position (n=21) or 2) the catheter reinserted and wedged again (n=22). Slides (n=30) from nonbronchoscopic lavage samples were selected at random and two independent observers counted 500 cells on each slide on two occasions. The repeatability of the lavage sampling and cell counting was assessed for different cell types. The inter- and intra-observer repeatability for the differential cell counting demonstrated that there was good repeatability for all cell types except lymphocytes (interobserver: Lin's concordance coefficient 0.42; repeatability coefficient 0.66). Quantification of eosinophil (%) was highly repeatable using either method (Lin's concordance coefficient 1) 0.99, 2) 0.95; repeatability coefficient 1) 0.58, 2) 1.36). Nonbronchoscopic lavage is a repeatable technique for the quantification of eosinophils. Variation in the sampling method can be reduced by taking two separate samples and averaging the differential cell counts. Furthermore, increasing the number of cells counted should ensure accurate quantification of lymphocytes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".