Induced sputum for diagnosing<i>Pneumocystis carinii</i>pneumonia in HIV patients: new data, new issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complexity of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) has motivated the search for noninvasive methodology to retrieve specimens for detecting the presence of various pulmonary diseases. Induced sputum (IS) has been shown to be a reliable tool in terms of sensitivity and specificity comparable to BAL. Investigators from institutions worldwide have published several reports providing evidence in support of one or the other or a combination of both approaches. Among them are studies demonstrating the sensitivity and specificity of IS in diagnosing Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). In 1996, highly active antiretroviral therapy was introduced for routine use and the morbidity from opportunistic infections decreased sharply. An earlier study showed that cost-effectiveness depends on the prevalence of a given condition in the population. More recent studies have confirmed that prophylaxis against PCP can be stopped after increasing the CD4 cell count, thus reducing the attractiveness of IS as a preferred method for monitoring the course of disease. This review presents a brief description of the evolution of the bronchoalveolar lavage versus induced sputum controversy and reconsiders the strengths and weaknesses of the earlier arguments in light of newer data that have emerged with regard to Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".