Sex differences in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease evaluated using optical coherence tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there are more women than men dying of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States and elsewhere, we still do not have a clear understanding of the differences in the pathophysiology of airflow obstruction between the sexes. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an emerging imaging technology that has the capability of imaging small bronchioles with resolution approaching histology. Therefore, our objective was to compare OCT-derived airway wall measurements between males and females matched for lung size and in anatomically matched small airways. Subjects 50-80 yrs were enrolled in the British Columbia Lung Health Study and underwent OCT and spirometry. OCT was performed using a 1.5mm diameter probe/sheath in anatomically matched airways for males and females; the right lower lobe (RB8 or RB9) or left lower lobe (LB8 or LB9) during end-expiration. OCT airway wall area (Aaw) was obtained by manual segmentation. For males and females there was no significant difference in OCT Aaw (p=0.12). Spearman correlation coefficients indicated that the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and Aaw were significantly correlated for males (r=-0.78, p=0.004) but not for females (r=-0.20, p=0.49) matched for lung size. These novel OCT findings demonstrate that while there were no overall sex differences in airway wall thickness, the relationship between lung function and airway wall thickness was correlated only in men. Therefore, factors other than airway remodeling may be driving COPD pathogenesis in women and OCT may provide important information for investigating airway remodeling and its relationship with COPD progression.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".