Core to Rind Distribution of Severe Emphysema Predicts Outcome of Lung Volume Reduction Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) has shown that emphysema is more extensive in the inner (core) region than in the outer (rind) region of the lung. It has been suggested that the concentration of emphysematous lesions in the outer rind leads to a better outcome following lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) because these regions tend to be more surgically accessible. The present study used a recently described, computer-based CT scan analysis to quantify severe emphysema (lung inflation > 10.2 ml gas/g tissue), mild/moderate emphysema (lung inflation = 10.2 to 6.0 ml gas/g tissue), and normal lung tissue (lung inflation < 6.0 ml gas/g tissue) present in the core and rind of the lung in 21 LVRS patients. The results show that the quantification of severe emphysema independently predicts change in maximal exercise response and FEV(1). We conclude that a greater extent of severe emphysema in the rind of the upper lung predicts greater benefit from LVRS because it identifies the lesions most accessible to removal by LVRS.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".