Total Airway Count on Computed Tomography and the Risk of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Progression. Findings from a Population-based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Studies of excised lungs show that significant airway attrition in the “quiet” zone occurs early in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives To determine if the total number of airways quantified in vivo using computed tomography (CT) reflects early airway-related disease changes and is associated with lung function decline independent of emphysema in COPD. Methods Participants in the multicenter, population-based, longitudinal CanCOLD (Canadian Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) study underwent inspiratory/expiratory CT at visit 1; spirometry was performed at four visits over 6 years. Emphysema was quantified as the CT inspiratory low-attenuation areas below −950 Hounsfield units. CT total airway count (TAC) was measured as well as airway inner diameter and wall area using anatomically equivalent airways. Measurements and Main Results Participants included never-smokers (n = 286), smokers with normal spirometry at risk for COPD (n = 298), Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) I COPD (n = 361), and GOLD II COPD (n = 239). TAC was significantly reduced by 19% in both GOLD I and GOLD II compared with never-smokers (P < 0.0001) and by 17% in both GOLD I and GOLD II compared with at-risk participants (P < 0.0001) after adjusting for low-attenuation areas below −950 Hounsfield units. Further analysis revealed parent airways with missing daughter branches had reduced inner diameters (P < 0.0001) and thinner walls (P < 0.0001) compared with those without missing daughter branches. Among all CT measures, TAC had the greatest influence on FEV1 (P < 0.0001), FEV1/FVC (P < 0.0001), and bronchodilator responsiveness (P < 0.0001). TAC was independently associated with lung function decline (FEV1, P = 0.02; FEV1/FVC, P = 0.01). Conclusions TAC may reflect the airway-related disease changes that accumulate in the “quiet” zone in early/mild COPD, indicating that TAC acquired with commercially available software across various CT platforms may be a biomarker to predict accelerated COPD progression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".