Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the computed tomography (CT) imaging features of reexpansion pulmonary edema. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 22 consecutive patients with clinical and radiologic features consistent with reexpansion pulmonary edema (14 male, 8 female; mean age, 56±22.8 y; range, 19 to 82 y) and with available CT scan images within 3 days of drainage of pleural effusion or pneumothorax. The CT images were reviewed by 2 chest radiologists with consensus for the presence, extent, and distribution of ground-glass opacities, septal thickening, consolidation, presence of persistent areas of atelectasis, vascular caliber, linear opacities, residual midline shift, and trapped lung. RESULTS: CT findings included ipsilateral ground-glass opacities (n=21, 95%), smooth septal thickening (n=17, 77%), consolidation (n=14, 68%), and persistent foci of atelectasis (n=19, 86%). Less commonly seen features included air-bronchograms (n=6, 27%) and nodules (n=5, 23%) [centrilobular, n=4 (18%); random, n=1 (4.5%)]. Contralateral abnormalities were seen in 8 cases (36%) and included ground-glass opacities in 6 patients, interlobular septal thickening in 3 patients (13.6%), and consolidation in 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The most common CT findings of reexpansion pulmonary edema include ipsilateral ground-glass opacities, septal thickening, foci of consolidation, and areas of atelectasis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".