Oesophageal diameter is associated with severity but not progression of systemic sclerosis‐associated interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It is unknown whether oesophageal disease is associated with systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) severity, progression or mortality. METHODS: High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans from 145 SSc-ILD patients were scored for fibrosis score, oesophageal diameter and presence of hiatal hernia. Fibrosis asymmetry was calculated as: (most affected side - least affected side)/(most affected side + least affected side). Mixed effects models were used for repeated measures analyses. RESULTS: Mean fibrosis score was 8.6%, and most patients had mild-to-moderate physiological impairment. Every 1 cm increase in oesophageal diameter was associated with 1.8% higher fibrosis score and 5.5% lower forced vital capacity (FVC; P ≤ 0.001 for unadjusted and adjusted analyses). Patients with hiatal hernia had 3.9% higher fibrosis score, with persistent differences on adjusted analysis (P = 0.001). Oesophageal diameter predicted worsening fibrosis score over the subsequent year (P = 0.02), but not when adjusting for baseline fibrosis score (P = 0.16). Oesophageal diameter was independently associated with mortality (P = 0.001). Oesophageal diameter was not associated with asymmetric disease or radiological features of gross aspiration. CONCLUSION: Oesophageal diameter and hiatal hernia are independently associated with SSc-ILD severity and mortality, but not with ILD progression or asymmetric disease. Oesophageal disease is unlikely to be a significant driver of ILD progression in SSc.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".