Pathologic Separation of Chronic Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis From Fibrotic Connective Tissue Disease–associated Interstitial Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic (fibrotic) hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) and fibrosing interstitial pneumonias associated with connective tissue disease (CTD-ILD) can be difficult to distinguish in biopsy specimens. To investigate features that might separate these entities, 2 pathologists blinded to the diagnoses reviewed 16 cases of chronic HP and 12 cases of CTD-ILD. Fifteen predefined parameters were examined by morphometric point counting, analysis/cm of lung tissue, or presence/absence. Germinal centers were present in a minority of patients, but favored a diagnosis of CTD-ILD (7/12 CTD vs. 2/16 HP; odds ratio, 9.80 [95% confidence interval, 1.50-63.4]; P=0.02). The number of lymphoid aggregates/cm (4.4±3.1 vs. 1.4±1.0; P=0.001), volume proportion of plasma cells (0.076±0.058 vs. 0.031±0.023; P=0.031), and plasma cell: lymphocyte ratio (1.03±0.71 vs. 0.35±0.22; P=0.001) were all significantly higher in CTD compared with HP. A diagnosis of HP was more common in the presence of peribronchiolar metaplasia (12/16 HP vs. 4/12 CTD; odds ratio, 6.00 [95% confidence interval, 1.15-31.2]; P=0.033) and in patients with a greater fraction of bronchioles showing peribronchiolar metaplasia (0.41±0.33 vs. 0.16±0.27; P<0.001). Number of fibroblast foci/cm, distribution of fibroblast foci, pattern of fibrosis, presence of giant cells/granulomas, and volume proportion of lymphocytes or eosinophils did not distinguish chronic HP from CTD-ILD. We conclude that no single morphologic measure definitively separates chronic HP from CTD-ILD lung biopsies, but numerous foci of peribronchiolar metaplasia favor HP, while the presence of germinal centers, large numbers of lymphoid aggregates, or a high plasma cell: lymphocyte ratio suggests CTD-ILD. Multidisciplinary discussion is often necessary for accurate classification inthis setting.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".