Clinic and radiological improvement of lipoid pneumonia with multiple bronchoalveolar lavages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential role of multiple bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs) in the treatment of children with lipoid pneumonia (LP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study included 10 children (7 female, 3 male) with LP secondary to mineral oil aspiration. The age ranged from 3 months to 7 years and 1-60 days history of mineral oil intake, with a 6 months clinic follow-up. High-resolution computer tomography (CT) was performed 1-7 days prior to treatment and 2-20 days after the last therapeutic BAL, and reviewed by two experienced chest radiologists. Oxygen saturation was measured with digital oximetry. Therapeutic BAL was performed weekly until BAL fluid was nearly transparent and the cell count returned to normal range values. RESULTS: In all children, the initial CT scans showed multifocal bilateral consolidation involving mainly the dorsal and central regions. The areas of consolidation had foci of decreased attenuation in eight patients. Following a total of 4-10 therapeutic BALs, the CT scans returned to normal in 3 patients, improved considerably in 5, and showed only slight improvement in 2. Oxygen saturation increased from 88.8 +/- 3.4% at presentation to 96.2 +/- 0.8% after treatment (P < 0.0001). Multiple lavages reduced (P < 0.003) numbers of lipid-laden macrophages and restored BAL cellularity to normal range values. CONCLUSION: Multiple therapeutic BAL of children with LP results in significant improvement of CT findings, oxygen saturation, restoration of BAL fluid cellularity and clinical recover without any evidence of respiratory distress at the end of treatment and 6 months after the last BAL.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".