Sex Differences in Severe Pulmonary Emphysema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Limited data on sex differences in advanced COPD are available. OBJECTIVES: To compare male and female emphysema patients with severe disease. METHODS: One thousand fifty-three patients (38.8% female) evaluated for lung volume reduction surgery as part of the National Emphysema Treatment Trial were analyzed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Detailed clinical, physiological, and radiological assessment, including quantitation of emphysema severity and distribution from helical chest computed tomography, was completed. In a subgroup (n = 101), airway size and thickness was determined by histological analyses of resected tissue. Women were younger and exhibited a lower body mass index (BMI), shorter smoking history, less severe airflow obstruction, lower Dl(co) and arterial Po(2), higher arterial Pco(2), shorter six-minute walk distance, and lower maximal wattage during oxygen-supplemented cycle ergometry. For a given FEV(1)% predicted, age, number of pack-years, and proportion of emphysema, women experienced greater dyspnea, higher modified BODE, more depression, lower SF-36 mental component score, and lower quality of well-being. Overall emphysema was less severe in women, with the difference from men most evident in the outer peel of the lung. Females had thicker small airway walls relative to luminal perimeters. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe COPD, women, relative to men, exhibit anatomically smaller airway lumens with disproportionately thicker airway walls, and emphysema that is less extensive and characterized by smaller hole size and less peripheral involvement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".