Predictors of emphysema progression in HIV‐positive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to find factors associated with emphysema progression (EP), assessed on sequential thoracic CT scans, in a large cohort of HIV-positive patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational, prospective study of 448 consecutive HIV-positive patients on antiretroviral therapy who underwent two sequential ECG-gated coronary artery calcium scoring CT scans. Images were reviewed by three radiologists by consensus to assess lung emphysema using a visual semi-quantitative score (0 to 4) for each of six lobes. EP was defined as an increase in emphysema score. Heavy smoking habit was defined as a self-reported number of cigarettes per day smoked greater than 10. Immune reconstitution was defined as the change in CD4 cell count between first CT scan and CD4 nadir and it was divided into tertiles. Progressors and non-progressors were compared using X2-test for categorical variables and T-test of Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables where appropriate. Factors independently associated with EP were explored using multivariable logistic regression analyses. A p-value <.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean age of the included patients was 47,9±7,7 years, 24,1% of them were females and 39,3% were smokers. The median interval between the two CT scans was 2,4 years (interquartile range 0,69-5,9 years). EP was significantly associated with HIV-infection duration (p=0,056), smoking (p=0,007) and in particular heavy smoking habit (p=0,015) and time interval between the two scans (p=0,021), while the highest tertile of immune reconstitution was borderline in significance (p=0,075). Age and sex were not significantly related to EP and were not included in further analyses. HIV infection duration (OR=1,01; p=0,013), time interval between the two scans (OR=1,51; p=0,032) and heavy smoking habit (OR=3,36; p=0,041) remained independently associated with EP in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of HIV positive patients on antiretroviral therapy, HIV infection duration, time between CT scans and continued heavy cigarette smoking were independently associated with EP.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".