Usual Interstitial Pneumonia and Chronic Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonia: Analysis of CT Appearance in 92 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively analyze computed tomographic (CT) findings of chronic idiopathic interstitial pneumonia (IIP) and to determine which findings are most helpful for distinguishing IIP from usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) with univariate and multivariate analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were not required for this retrospective review of patient records and images. Two observers working independently and without knowledge of the diagnosis evaluated the extent and distribution of various thin-section CT findings (ground-glass opacity, consolidation, reticulation, and honeycombing) in 92 patients (51 men, 41 women; mean age, 56 years; age range, 29-81 years) with a histologic diagnosis of UIP (n = 20), cellular nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) (n = 16), fibrotic NSIP (n = 16), respiratory bronchiolitis-associated interstitial lung disease (RB-ILD) (n = 11), desquamative interstitial pneumonia (DIP) (n = 15), or lymphoid interstitial pneumonia (LIP) (n = 14). Observers used univariate and multivariate statistical analyses to compare their findings with the extent and distribution of UIP. RESULTS: Observers made the correct diagnosis in 145 (79%) of 184 readings. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the independent findings that distinguished UIP from cellular NSIP were the extent of honeycombing and the most proximal bronchus with traction bronchiectasis (odds ratio, 5.16 and 0.37, respectively); the finding that distinguished UIP from fibrotic NSIP was the extent of honeycombing (odds ratio, 2.10). CT features that distinguished UIP from RB-ILD and DIP included extent of ground-glass opacity (odds ratio, 0.76), thickening of bronchovascular bundles (odds ratio, 1.58), the most proximal bronchus with traction bronchiectasis (odds ratio, 0.22), and the number of segments with traction bronchiectasis (odds ratio, 3.64). CONCLUSION: UIP has a characteristic appearance that usually facilitates distinction from other types of chronic IIPs at thin-section CT. The most useful finding when differentiating UIP from NSIP was the extent of honeycombing.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".