Using Novel Computed Tomography Analysis to Describe the Contribution and Distribution of Emphysema and Small Airways Disease in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by airflow limitation, caused by emphysema and small airways disease (SAD). Computed tomography (CT) coupled with image analysis enables the quantification of these abnormalities; however, the optimum method for doing so has not been determined. Objectives This study aims to compare two CT quantitative analysis techniques, disease probability measure (DPM) and parametric response mapping (PRM), and assess their relationship with specific physiological measures of SAD. Methods Subjects with mild to moderate COPD, never smokers, and healthy ex-smokers were recruited. Each had airway oscillometry and multiple-breath nitrogen washout, measuring peripheral airway resistance, peripheral airway reactance, and acinar airway inhomogeneity. Subjects also had an inspiratory and expiratory chest CT, with DPM and PRM analysis performed by coregistering images and classifying each voxel as normal, emphysema, or nonemphysematous gas trapping related to SAD. Results Thirty-eight subjects with COPD, 18 never smokers, and 23 healthy ex-smokers were recruited. There were strong associations between DPM and PRM analysis when measuring gas trapping (ρ = 0.87; P < 0.001) and emphysema (ρ = 0.99; P < 0.001). DPM assigned significantly more voxels as emphysema and gas trapped than PRM (P < 0.001). Both techniques showed significantly greater emphysema and gas trapping in subjects with COPD than in never smokers and ex-smokers (P < 0.001). All CT measures had significant associations with peripheral airway resistance and reactance, with disease probability measure of nonemphysematous gas trapping related to SAD having the strongest independent association with peripheral airway resistance (β = 0.42; P = 0.001) and peripheral airway reactance (β = 0.41; P = 0.001). Emphysema measures had the strongest associations with acinar airway inhomogeneity (β = 0.35–0.38). Conclusions These results provide further validation for the use of DPM/PRM analysis in COPD by demonstrating significant relationships with specific physiological measures of SAD.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".