Chest Radiographic and CT Manifestations of Chronic Granulomatous Disease in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the thoracic radiologic findings of chronic granulomatous disease in adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the chest radiographic and CT findings in four adults with chronic granulomatous disease during five episodes of lower respiratory tract infection. RESULTS: Chest radiographic findings included areas of consolidation (60%), diffuse reticulonodular opacities (40%), pleural effusion (20%), and pulmonary artery enlargement (20%). CT findings included areas of consolidation (60%), pulmonary nodules in a random distribution (60%), centrilobular nodules (60%), tree-in-bud opacities (40%), areas of scarring and traction bronchiectasis (100%), emphysematous changes (75%), areas of decreased attenuation and vascularity associated with air trapping on expiratory CT (50%), mediastinal and/or hilar lymphadenopathy (60%), pulmonary artery enlargement (50%), and pleural effusion (20%). Areas of consolidation and nodules were the most prominent findings and at histologic examination were found to be associated with infection or granulomatous inflammation. CONCLUSION: The pulmonary radiologic findings of chronic granulomatous disease include consolidation, nodules, areas of scarring, traction bronchiectasis, emphysema, air trapping, mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy, pulmonary artery enlargement, and pleural effusion.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".