Classification of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regardless of the causative antigen, hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) is usually classified as 'acute', 'subacute' or 'chronic'. Considerable confusion still surrounds this classification because there are no widely accepted criteria to distinguish the various stages. The objective of this study was to determine whether the current classification of HP truly reflects categories of patients with distinct clinical features. METHODS: Data obtained from a large prospective multicenter cohort study (the HP Study) were used to divide a cohort of patients with HP into a limited number of categories (clusters) with maximally differing clinical patterns, without prejudgment. The results of this cluster analysis were compared with the current classification of HP (acute, subacute or chronic). RESULTS: 168 patients were included in the analysis. A 2-cluster solution best fitted the data. Patients in cluster 1 (41 patients) had more recurrent systemic symptoms (chills and body aches) and normal chest radiographs than those in cluster 2 (127 patients) who showed significantly more clubbing, hypoxemia, restrictive patterns on pulmonary function tests and fibrosis on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). All p values were <0.0001, using Fisher's exact test. Nodular opacities were seen on HRCT as often in cluster 1 as in cluster 2. There was considerable disagreement between the current classification of HP and the results of our analysis. CONCLUSION: The current classification of acute, subacute and chronic HP is not supported by our analysis. Subacute HP is particularly difficult to define.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".