The Prediction of Small Airway Dimensions Using Computed Tomography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is characterized by destruction of the lung parenchyma and/or small airway narrowing. To determine whether the dimensions of relatively large airways assessed using computed tomography (CT) reflect small airway dimensions measured histologically, we assessed these variables in nonobstructed or mild to moderately obstructed patients having lobar resection for a peripheral tumor. For both CT and histology, the square root of the airway wall area (Aaw) was plotted versus lumen perimeter to estimate wall thickness. The wall area percentage was calculated as wall area/lumen area + wall area x 100. Although CT overestimated Aaw, the slopes of the relationships between the square root of Aaw and internal perimeter (Pi) measured with both techniques were related (CT slope = 0.2059 histology slope + 0.1701, R2 = 0.32, p < 0.01). The mean wall area percentage measured by CT for airways with a Pi of greater than 0.75 cm predicted the mean dimensions of the small airways with an internal diameter of 1.27 mm (R2 = 0.57, p < 0.01). We conclude that CT measurements of airways with a Pi of 0.75 cm or more could be used to estimate the dimensions of the small conducting airways, which are the site of airway obstruction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it