Airway Wall Thickening and Emphysema Show Independent Familial Aggregation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: It is unclear whether airway wall thickening and emphysema make independent contributions to airflow limitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and whether these phenotypes cluster within families. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether airway wall thickening and emphysema (1) make independent contributions to the severity of COPD and (2) show independent aggregation in families of individuals with COPD. METHODS: Index cases with COPD and their smoking siblings underwent spirometry and were offered high-resolution computed tomography scans of the thorax to assess the severity of airway wall thickening and emphysema. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 3,096 individuals were recruited to the study, of whom 1,159 (519 probands and 640 siblings) had technically adequate high-resolution computed tomography scans without significant non-COPD-related thoracic disease. Airway wall thickness correlated with pack-years smoked (P < or = 0.001) and symptoms of chronic bronchitis (P < 0.001). FEV(1) (expressed as % predicted) was independently associated with airway wall thickness at a lumen perimeter of 10 mm (P = 0.0001) and 20 mm (P = 0.0013) and emphysema at -950 Hounsfield units (P < 0.0001). There was independent familial aggregation of both the emphysema (adjusted odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.0; P < or = 0.02) and airway disease phenotypes (P < 0.0001) of COPD. CONCLUSIONS: Airway wall thickening and emphysema make independent contributions to airflow obstruction in COPD. These phenotypes show independent aggregation within families of individuals with COPD, suggesting that different genetic factors influence these disease processes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".