Pulmonary Cryptococcosis: CT and Pathologic Findings
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
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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