Evidence for dysanapsis using computed tomographic imaging of the airways in older ex-smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to determine the relationship between lung size and airway size in men and women of varying stature. We also asked if men and women matched for lung size would still have differences in airway size and if so where along the pulmonary airway tree would these differences exist. We used computed tomography to measure airway luminal areas of the large and central airways. We determined airway luminal areas in men (n = 25) and women (n = 25) who were matched for age, body mass index, smoking history, and pulmonary function and in a separate set of men (n = 10) and women (n = 11) who were matched for lung size. Men had greater values for the larger airways and many of the central airways. When male and female subjects were pooled there were significant associations between lung size and airway size. Within the male and female groups the magnitudes of these associations were decreased or nonsignificant. In males and females matched for lung size women had significantly smaller airway luminal areas. The larger conducting airways in females are significantly smaller than those of males even after controlling for lung size.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".