Phenotyping COPD exacerbations using imaging and blood-based biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are caused by a variety of different etiologic agents. Our aim was to phenotype COPD exacerbations using imaging (chest X-ray [CXR] and computed tomography [CT]) and to determine the possible role of the blood tests (C-reactive protein [CRP], the N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) as diagnostic biomarkers. Materials and methods: Subjects who were hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of AECOPD and who had had CXRs, CT scans, and blood collection for CRP and NT-proBNP were assessed in this study. Radiologist blinded to the clinical and laboratory characteristics of the subjects interpreted their CXRs and CT images. ANOVA and Spearman’s correlation were performed to test for associations between these imaging parameters and the blood-based biomarkers NT-proBNP and CRP; logistic regression models were used to assess the performance of these biomarkers in predicting the radiological parameters. Results: A total of 309 subjects were examined for this study. Subjects had a mean age of 65.6±11.1 years, 66.7% of them were males, and 62.4% were current smokers, with a mean FEV 1 54.4%±21.5% of predicted. Blood NT-proBNP concentrations were associated with cardiac enlargement (area under the curve [AUC] =0.72, P <0.001), pulmonary edema (AUC =0.63, P =0.009), and pleural effusion on CXR (AUC =0.64, P =0.01); whereas on CT images, NT-proBNP concentrations were associated with pleural effusion (AUC =0.71, P =0.002). Serum CRP concentrations, on the other hand, were associated with consolidation on CT images (AUC =0.75, P <0.001), ground glass opacities (AUC =0.64, P =0.028), and pleural effusion (AUC =0.72, P <0.001) on CT images. A serum CRP sensitivity-oriented cutoff point of 11.5 mg/L was selected for the presence of consolidation on CT images in subjects admitted as cases of AECOPD, which has a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 53% ( P <0.001). Conclusion: Elevated CRP may indicate the presence of pneumonia, while elevated NT-proBNP may indicate cardiac dysfunction. These readily available blood-based biomarkers may provide more accurate phenotyping of AECOPD and enable the discovery of more precise therapies. Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, exacerbation, biomarker, CT scan, chest X-ray
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".