Normal Expiratory Flow Rate and Lung Volumes in Patients with Combined Emphysema and Interstitial Lung Disease: A Case Series and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary function tests in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis characteristically show a restrictive pattern including small lung volumes and increased expiratory flow rates resulting from a reduction in pulmonary compliance due to diffuse fibrosis. Conversely, an obstructive pattern with hyperinflation results in emphysema by loss of elastic recoil, expiratory collapse of the peripheral airways and air trapping. When the diseases coexist, pulmonary volumes are compensated, and a smaller than expected reduction or even normal lung volumes can be found. The present report describes 10 patients with progressive breathlessness, three of whom experienced severe limitation in their quality of life. All patients showed lung interstitial involvement and emphysema on computed tomography scan of the chest. The 10 patients showed normal spirometry and lung volumes with severe compromise of gas exchange. Normal lung volumes do not exclude diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in patients with concomitant emphysema. The relatively preserved lung volumes may underestimate the severity of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and attenuate its effects on lung function parameters.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".