A method to preserve sputum for delayed examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examination of sputum cell counts is limited by the need to process samples within hours of expectoration. The validity and repeatability of a method to preserve sputum for delayed processing and examination were investigated in this study. Portions of selected sputum from 39 subjects were dispersed with dithiothreitol (routine method), or were fixed in a dithiothreitol-formaldehyde mixture for 48-72 h before dispersal with trypsin (preservation method). Total and differential cell counts using the two methods were compared; within-method repeatability of the preservation method was also examined. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for total cell counts and percentage of eosinophils, neutrophils and macrophages in sputum processed by the two methods was 0.89, 0.86, 0.91 and 0.90, respectively. Within-method repeatability (ICC) of the preservation method for the same cellular indices was 0.99, 0.94, 0.97 and 0.97, respectively. The interobserver repeatability for eosinophils, neutrophils and macrophages was 0.96, 0.97 and 0.97 using the preservation method, and 0.96, 0.99 and 0.99 using the routine method, respectively. This method of sputum preservation and dispersal is valid, reliable and convenient, and may be used for delayed processing and examination.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".