MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417862214

Bronchial anthracofibrosis and tuberculosis in immigrants to Canada from the Indian subcontinent.

2010· article· en· W2417862214 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ji‐Yun Hwang, L Puttagunta, F Green, A Shimanovsky, J Barrié, R Long

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyHumanitiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bronchial anthracofibrosis is a condition of proximal airway narrowing or obliteration and hyperpigmentation in persons with or without a history of occupational dust exposure. It is a bronchoscopic finding that is not uncommonly associated with pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) in residents of South Korea, Iran and India. It is largely unrecognized in the Western world. METHODS: We report the frequency of anthracofibrosis in foreign-born PTB patients who underwent bronchoscopy in two cities of Canada. We describe the composition of the pigment in the lungs of patients and speculate on the pathogenesis of anthracofibrosis-associated PTB. RESULTS: Anthracofibrosis was present in 10/60 (16.7%) foreign-born patients who underwent bronchoscopy and had PTB between 2002 and 2006. Compared to patients from other Asian countries, patients from the Indian subcontinent were more likely to have anthracofibrosis (9/18, 50.0% vs. 1/26, 3.7%, P < 0.001). Carbonaceous particles, silica and silicates predominated in tissue specimens. Proximal airway narrowing appeared to be secondary to mixed dust- and smoke-related anthracofibrosis, PTB, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Anthracofibrosis is not uncommon in immigrants to Canada from the Indian subcontinent with PTB. PTB may be a responsible or complicating condition in patients with anthracofibrosis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.153
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207