Lipid-laden macrophages in induced sputum are a marker of oropharyngeal reflux and possible gastric aspiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diagnostic properties of a "lipid index" of macrophages in induced sputum as a noninvasive marker of aspiration of acidic gastric contents were evaluated. In a cross-sectional study, 33 subjects (17 with symptoms suggestive of gastrooesophageal reflux) with normal chest radiographs and no symptoms of aspiration or sinus disease, underwent dual-channel 24-h ambulatory oesophageal pH recording and sputum induction. Oropharyngeal reflux, defined as at least one episode of a fall in pH to <4 at the upper oesophageal electrode, was considered indicative of aspiration of acidic gastric contents ("gold standard"). An index for the presence of intracellular lipid in sputum macrophages, detected by oil red O stain, was obtained. The sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of this "lipid index" were calculated. The "lipid index" could be calculated in 29 of 33 samples with high interobserver repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.96). Twenty subjects showed oropharyngeal reflux and nine did not. The median "lipid index" in subjects with oropharyngeal reflux (24.5) was significantly greater than that in those without reflux (1.0) (p<0.001). A "lipid index" of 7.0 had a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 95% and a negative predictive value of 80%. A "lipid index" of 7.0 in the macrophages of induced sputum is a good marker of oropharyngeal reflux.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".