Development of a Semiquantitative Histological Score for the Diagnosis of Heaves Using Endobronchial Biopsy Specimens in Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Remodeling of the peripheral airways persists during the asymptomatic phase of heaves. Assessing the histology of large bronchi could facilitate the diagnosis of heaves during remission of the disease. Hypothesis Airway inflammation and remodeling in endobronchial biopsy (EBB) specimens differentiate horses with heaves from controls, independently of their clinical status (exacerbation or remission). Animals Fourteen healthy horses and 24 horses with heaves. Methods A 14-point scoring system assessing central bronchial wall inflammation and remodeling was developed. The score was validated by 2 pathologists using specimens obtained from 18 horses (6 controls, 6 with heaves exacerbation, and 6 with heaves remission) in which lung function had been assessed with impulse oscillometry. Clinical and research application of the score was evaluated using biopsy specimens obtained from 20 additional horses (8 controls, 6 with heaves exacerbation, and 6 with heaves remission). Results The score was repeatable (interclass correlation coefficient = 69%). It differentiated horses with heaves in exacerbation (mean ± SD: 6.2 ± 2.2) from those in remission (4.0 ± 1.0) and controls (3.6 ± 1.7, P < 0.0001). The histological scores of horses with heaves correlated with the ratio of respiratory resistance (R) at 5 and 10 Hz (R5 : R10 ratio, r = 0.65, P = 0.03), a parameter assessing airway obstruction. Conclusions and Clinical Significance The proposed histological scoring system correlates with the degree of airway obstruction measured by impulse oscillometry. However, it does not discriminate horses with heaves in remission from controls. Evaluation of EBB specimens might be considered in future research and clinical studies of respiratory diseases in horses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".