Induced sputum: time from expectoration to processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the limitations in the use of induced sputum to measure indices of airway inflammation is the perceived need to process the sample within 2 h. Therefore, the authors investigated whether the processing of induced sputum could be delayed. Induced sputum samples obtained from asthmatic subjects (n=30) were examined. Each sample was stored at 4 degrees C. A portion was selected and processed within 2 h and the remaining expectorate (sputum plus saliva) was refrigerated. Later an equal amount was selected and processed at either 9 (n=15) or 18 (n=15) h. The sputum was examined for cell counts and viability, fluid-phase eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), interleukin-8 (IL-8) and fibrinogen. Repeatability of measurements was assessed by the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Measurements obtained at 9 h did not differ from those made at 2 h and the repeatability was excellent (ICC 0.88-0.99). However, by 18 h the median cell viability was reduced from 65.0% to 43.0% and the ICC was generally lower: 0.10 for total cell count, 0.24 for viability, 0.60 for neutrophils, 0.90 for eosinophils, 0.56 for macrophages, 0.76 for ECP, 0.82 for IL-8 and 0.84 for fibrinogen. The results indicate that when induced sputum from subjects with asthma is kept at 4 degrees C, examination of cell counts can be delayed for < or = 9 h and for the fluid-phase indices measured for < or = 18 h. Further investigation of this issue is required for spontaneous sputum, other airway diseases and other inflammatory markers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".