Cytologic examination of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from immunosuppressed patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary infiltrates in immunocompromised patients frequently represent infections. This study was undertaken to evaluate cytologic examination of bronchoalveolar lavage samples and the value of different preparations and silver staining. Over 6 mo, 336 samples were collected from 155 immunosuppressed patients in whom both cytologic and microbiologic studies were performed. In 27 samples, the cytology, microbiology or both demonstrated the presence of infectious agents. In four cases, cytology identified neoplastic process. Cytology had a sensitivity of 34.6% for detection of infection, which increased to 42.9% when Cytomegalovirus was excluded. Cytology detected 6 of 15 cases of Aspergillus, including three cases not detected by microbiology and 3 of 4 cases of Pneumocystis, but did not identify any of the Cytomegalovirus cases. The type of preparations did not affect detection of the organism when present in cytologic samples and silver staining did not appear to have added value in examination of these samples.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".