The impact of diurnal variation on induced sputum cell counts in healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Induced sputum cell counts are a non-invasive, reliable method for evaluating the presence, type, and degree of inflammation in the airways of the lungs. Current reference values for induced sputum cell counts in healthy adults do not account for the effects of circadian rhythm, including diurnal variation. The objective of this study was to describe the diurnal variation in induced sputum cell counts, compared between early morning and late afternoon, in healthy adult individuals. METHODS: 100 healthy adult subjects with no history of lung disease and normal bronchial reactivity proceeded with induced sputum testing at 7 am and 4 pm on different days. The order of testing was randomized. The cytotechnologist preparing and performing the cell counts was blinded to the sample collection time and subject characteristics. RESULTS: 65 subjects were included in the final analyses. There was no significant change in the total and differential sputum cell counts between the 7 am and 4 pm collections. There was good inter-observer agreement with respect to differential sputum cell count interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to assess the variation in induced sputum cell counts in healthy adult subjects at different times of the day. We found no significant change in total and differential sputum cell counts between the 7 am and 4 pm collection time points. This is in contrast to studies in asthmatics that demonstrated a circadian variation in sputum cell counts and other markers of inflammation, suggesting that fluctuations in airway inflammatory cells during the day are a disease-specific effect.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".