Hyaluronic Acid Concentration in Pleural Fluid: Diagnostic Aid for Tuberculous Pleurisy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A high concentration of hyaluronic acid in pleural fluid is suggestive of malignant mesothelioma. However, a relatively high concentration of hyaluronic acid was also seen in the pleural fluid of patients with benign inflammatory diseases. To show the utility of measuring hyaluronic acid levels in pleural fluid to diagnose tuberculous pleurisy, we compared the clinical features and levels of hyaluronic acid in the pleural fluid of patients with and without tuberculous pleurisy. METHODS: We enrolled 27 patients with infective pleurisy admitted at Teikyo University Hospital from January 2010 to December 2013. Ten patients were diagnosed with tuberculous pleurisy, and 17 with non-tuberculous pleurisy. We reviewed the clinical features and data of all 27 patients and compared the two groups. We analyzed and compared the concentration of hyaluronic acid and adenosine deaminase in their pleural fluid. RESULTS: Patients with tuberculous pleurisy tended to have significantly higher concentrations of hyaluronic acid and adenosine deaminase in their pleural fluid (tuberculous pleurisy patients vs. other infective pleurisy patients: hyaluronic acid (× 10(3) ng/mL); 42.9 ± 23.3 vs. 16.8 ± 17.9, P = 0.003, adenosine deaminase (IU/L); 89.7 ± 33.3 vs. 74.0 ± 90.9, P = 0.032). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed no significant difference in the area under the curve of hyaluronic acid and adenosine deaminase volumes in pleural fluid, suggesting their equivalent value as major diagnostic tools for tuberculosis pleurisy. CONCLUSIONS: Hyaluronic acid concentration in pleural fluid can be a valuable tool for the diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".