Pulmonary Cryptococcosis: CT and Pathologic Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to describe the CT and pathologic findings of pulmonary cryptococcosis. METHOD: CT scans of 11 patients (7 immunocompromised, 4 immunocompetent) with proven pulmonary cryptococcosis were analyzed for number, morphologic characteristics, and distribution of parenchymal abnormalities as well for presence of lymphadenopathy and pleural effusion. Pathology of lung specimens obtained by open biopsy or resection (n = 5) and transbronchial biopsy (n = 1) was reviewed by one dedicated pulmonary pathologist. RESULTS: Pulmonary nodules, either solitary or multiple, were the most common CT finding, present in 10 of 11 patients (91%); associated findings included masses (n = 4), CT halo sign (n = 3), and consolidation (n = 2). On histologic examination, focal areas of ground-glass attenuation surrounding or adjacent to nodules were found to represent airspace collections of macrophages and proteinaceous fluid. CONCLUSION: Pulmonary cryptococcosis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of solitary or multiple pulmonary nodules (with or without associated CT halo sign), particularly in immunocompromised patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".