Repeated Low-Dose Computed Tomography in Current and Former Smokers for Quantification of Emphysema
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".