Comparison of the Spectrum of Radiologic and Clinical Manifestations of Pulmonary Disease Caused by <i>Mycobacterium avium</i> Complex and <i>Mycobacterium xenopi</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Mycobacterium xenopi is described with upper lobe cavitation ("fibrocavitary" pattern), whereas the Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) is described with bronchiectasis and centrilobular nodules ("nodular bronchiectasis"). We retrospectively described and compared computed tomography (CT) chest manifestations of disease caused by MAC and M xenopi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed patients who had either MAC or M xenopi lung disease and who had CTs between January 2002 and December 2003. Clinical data were recorded, and the patterns on chest CTs were categorized as "fibrocavitary," "nodular bronchiectatic," and "unclassified." RESULTS: There were 74 patients; 50 with MAC and 24 with M xenopi. The patients with MAC were older (mean 69 vs 58 years; P = .007). Patients with M xenopi more often had emphysema (50% vs 20%; P = .02), cavities (46% vs 16%; P = .01), and nodules ≤5 mm (88% vs 58%; P = .02). M xenopi cases more commonly had a fibrocavitary radiologic pattern (33% vs 18%), with no statistically significant difference (P = .24). MAC was more often associated with a nodular bronchiectatic pattern (68% MAC vs 4% M xenopi; P < .0001). Sixty-three percent of patients with M xenopi had a pattern that was predominantly randomly distributed nodules (11/15 [73%]) or consolidation and/or ground-glass opacities (4/15 [27%]). CONCLUSION: Compared with MAC, patients with M xenopi infection develop more cavities and more nodules, and they less often have a predominant nodular bronchiectatic pattern. Although a predominantly cavitary pattern appears to be more common with M xenopi, the majority of patients with M xenopi had CT patterns of random nodules or consolidation and/or ground-glass opacities rather than classically described findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".