Evidence for dysanapsis using computed tomographic imaging of the airways in older ex-smokers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it