Repeated Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Current and Former Smokers for Quantification of Emphysema
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
OBJECTIVE: To quantify different emphysema evolution in current and former smokers. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed low-dose computed tomography scans from a lung cancer screening study of 59 current and 75 former smokers. The quantitative emphysema analysis was performed using a home-built software (YACTA version 0.9), yielding the parameters lung volume, emphysema volume (EV), emphysema index (EI), mean lung density, and 15th percentile. RESULTS: The baseline EV and EI were significantly different (median EVformer =422 mL vs EVcurrent =249 mL, P = 0.0003; and median EIformer =7.6 % vs EIcurrent =4.1 %, P = 0.0001, respectively). On the annual repeat scan, the median EI and EV for former smokers had decreased significantly (ΔEIformer = -0.257%, P = 0.004; and ΔEVcurrent = -0.203 mL, P = 0.020), whereas there was no emphysema change in current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to demonstrate different emphysema evolution in current versus former smokers; emphysema parameters decreased in the former smokers and remained stable in current smokers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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