Micro–Computed Tomography Comparison of Preterminal Bronchioles in Centrilobular and Panlobular Emphysema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Very little is known about airways that are too small to be visible on thoracic multidetector computed tomography but larger than the terminal bronchioles. OBJECTIVES: To examine the structure of preterminal bronchioles located one generation proximal to terminal bronchioles in centrilobular and panlobular emphysema. METHODS: Preterminal bronchioles were identified by backtracking from the terminal bronchioles, and their centerlines were established along the entire length of their lumens. Multiple cross-sectional images perpendicular to the centerline were reconstructed to evaluate the bronchiolar wall and lumen, and the alveolar attachments to the outer airway walls in relation to emphysematous destruction in 28 lung samples from six patients with centrilobular emphysema, 20 lung samples from seven patients with panlobular emphysema associated with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, and 47 samples from seven control (donor) lungs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The preterminal bronchiolar length, wall volume, total volume (wall + lumen), lumen circularity, and number of alveolar attachments were reduced in both centrilobular and panlobular emphysema compared with control lungs. In contrast, thickening of the wall and narrowing of the lumen were more severe and heterogeneous in centrilobular than in panlobular emphysema. The bronchiolar lumen was narrower in the middle than at both ends, and the decreased number of alveolar attachments was associated with increased wall thickness in centrilobular emphysema. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide new information about small airways pathology in centrilobular and panlobular emphysema and show that these changes affect airways that are not visible with thoracic multidetector computed tomography scans but located proximal to the terminal bronchioles in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".