Associations between emphysema-like lung on CT and incident airflow limitation: a general population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emphysema on CT is associated with accelerated lung function decline in heavy smokers and patients with COPD; however, in the general population, it is not known whether greater emphysema-like lung on CT is associated with incident COPD. We used data from 2045 adult participants without initial prebronchodilator airflow limitation, classified by FEV1/FVC<0.70, in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Emphysema-like lung on baseline cardiac CT, defined as per cent low attenuation areas<—950HU>upper limit of normal, was associated with increased odds of incident airflow limitation at 5-year follow-up on both prebronchodilator (adjusted OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.67) and postbronchodilator (adjusted OR 4.38, 95% CI 1.63 to 11.74) spirometry, independent of smoking history. These results support investigation into whether emphysema-like lung could be informative for COPD risk stratification.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".