P081 <break /> Evaluation of the association of emphysema with pulmonary hypertension and effects on mortality in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: There is conflicting evidence regarding the impact on mortality when emphysema coexists in patients with IPF. We investigated effects on outcome resulting from emphysema in a large IPF cohort, using visual and computer-based (CALIPER) CT analysis. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a multi-disciplinary team diagnosis of IPF (n = 272) had CT extents of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and emphysema scored visually on a lobar basis and volumetrically by CALIPER. CT scores were evaluated against functional indices (FVC, DLco, Kco and a composite physiologic index [CPI]), to determine the independent effects of ILD and emphysema extent on functional indices. Logistic regression identified variables predictive of the presence of pulmonary hypertension as measured by echocardiography. Finally, the independent effects of emphysema and ILD extent on mortality were investigated. RESULTS: IPF patients with emphysema (114/272 [42%]) had significantly less ILD than patients without emphysema (p = 0.004). After correction for DLco, age and gender, the presence/extent of emphysema scored visually and by CALIPER had no impact on the presence of pulmonary hypertension (Table 1). Findings were maintained at emphysema thresholds of > 5% and >10% of the lung. On Cox mortality analysis, when correcting for baseline disease severity with DLco, patients with and without emphysema had the same outcome with results maintained at emphysema thresholds of > 5% and >10% of the lung.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".