MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139131213 · doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205160

Comparison of spatially matched airways reveals thinner airway walls in COPD. The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) COPD Study and the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcomes in COPD Study (SPIROMICS)

2014· article· en· W2139131213 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin M. Smith, Eric A. Hoffman, Dan Rabinowitz, Eugene R. Bleecker, Stephanie A. Christenson, David Couper, Kathleen M. Donohue, MeiLan K. Han, Nadia N. Hansel, Richard E. Kanner, Eric C. Kleerup, Stephen I. Rennard, R. Graham Barr

Bibliographic record

VenueThorax · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCOPDMedicineAirwayLumen (anatomy)CardiologyLungAirway obstructionInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: COPD is characterised by reduced airway lumen dimensions and fewer peripheral airways. Most studies of airway properties sample airways based upon lumen dimension or at random, which may bias comparisons given reduced airway lumen dimensions and number in COPD. We sought to compare central airway wall dimensions on CT in COPD and controls using spatially matched airways, thereby avoiding selection bias of airways in the lung. METHODS: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) COPD Study and Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcomes in COPD Study (SPIROMICS) recruited smokers with COPD and controls aged 50-79 years and 40-80 years, respectively. COPD was defined by current guidelines. Using CT image data, airway dimensions were measured for all central airway segments (generations 0-6) following 5 standardised paths into the lungs. Case-control airway comparisons were spatially matched by generation and adjusted for demographics, body size, smoking, CT dose, per cent emphysema, airway length and lung volume. RESULTS: Among 311 MESA COPD participants, airway wall areas at generations 3-6 were smaller in COPD compared with controls (all p<0.001). Among 1248 SPIROMICS participants, airway wall areas at generations 1-6 were smaller (all p<0.001), and this reduction was monotonic with increasing COPD severity (p<0.001). In both studies, sampling airways by lumen diameter or randomly resulted in a comparison of more proximal airways in COPD to more peripheral airways in controls (p<0.001) resulting in the appearance of thicker walls in COPD (p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Airway walls are thinner in COPD when comparing spatially matched central airways. Other approaches to airway sampling result in comparisons of more proximal to more distal airways and potentially biased assessment of airway properties in COPD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations148
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoraxSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207