Quality of Bronchial Biopsies for Morphology Study and Cell Sampling: A Comparison of Asthmatic and Healthy Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bronchial biopsies are widely used for histopathological, primary cell culture and genetic studies, but very few reports have evaluated their quality. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: The present project evaluated the quality (using a scoring system) and the general morphology of a pool of six bronchial biopsy specimens taken from three different sampling sites (the lobar, segmental and subsegmental carinae) in 27 subjects (13 asthmatic subjects and 14 healthy controls). The present study also assessed quantitative measurements of structural changes related to asthma. RESULTS: In total, 94.4% of the biopsy attempts had enough tissue to be processed. From these, 61.7% were scored with a good to excellent quality, while 76.5% presented smooth muscle bundles and 40.5% had an intact epithelium wall. The data also confirmed the structural changes observed in asthma, such as increased apparent thickening of the basement membrane, reduced amounts of smooth muscle for healthy controls and decreased percentage of intact epithelium for asthmatic subjects. CONCLUSION: A pool of six bronchial biopsy specimens can provide tissue of excellent quality in both asthmatic and healthy subjects and, consequently, a valuable sample for morphological analysis of mucosal structures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".