Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonias: Prevalence of Mediastinal Lymph Node Enlargement in 206 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of our study were to determine the prevalence of mediastinal lymphadenopathy in idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, correlate their presence with high-resolution CT (HRCT) findings, and assess the potential value of mediastinal lymphadenopathy in the differential diagnosis of idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 206 consecutive patients from three medical centers with pathologically proven idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (n = 136), non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) (n = 47), cryptogenic organizing pneumonia (COP) (n = 16), respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease (RB-ILD) (n = 5), and desquamative interstitial pneumonia (DIP) (n = 2). HRCT scans were retrospectively reviewed for the presence of mediastinal lymphadenopathy (short-axis diameter, >or= 10 mm), predominant parenchymal pattern, and extent of disease. RESULTS: Mediastinal lymphadenopathy was seen in 139 (67%) of 206 patients, including 90 (66%) of 136 with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, 38 (81%) of 47 with NSIP, six (38%) of 16 with COP, and five (71%) of seven with RB-ILD or DIP. The presence of enlarged nodes was less common in COP than in the other idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (p = 0.04). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of lymphadenopathy in patients with predominant ground-glass opacity (53%) or predominant reticulation (40%). The extent of parenchymal abnormalities was 25-50% in 74 patients (53%), 50-75% in 30 (22%), < 25% in 22 (16%), and > 75% in 13 (9%). A positive correlation between the extent of disease and presence of lymphadenopathy was seen in patients with NSIP (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Mediastinal lymphadenopathy is a common feature in idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, being slightly less common in COP than in the other idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. The presence of lymphadenopathy therefore has limited value in the differential diagnosis. In patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, the presence of lymph node enlargement did not correlate to any specific HRCT pattern or to the extent of disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".