Transmission of bacteria in bronchiectasis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Low burden of cough aerosols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Aerosol transmission of Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been suggested as a possible mode of respiratory infection spread in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF); however, whether this occurs in other suppurative lung diseases is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to determine if (i) patients with bronchiectasis (unrelated to CF) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can aerosolize P. aeruginosa during coughing and (ii) if genetically indistinguishable (shared) P. aeruginosa strains are present in these disease cohorts. METHODS: People with bronchiectasis or COPD and P. aeruginosa respiratory infection were recruited for two studies. Aerosol study: Participants (n = 20) underwent cough testing using validated cough rigs to determine the survival of P. aeruginosa aerosols in the air over distance and duration. Genotyping study: P. aeruginosa sputum isolates (n = 95) were genotyped using the iPLEX20SNP platform, with a subset subjected to the enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus polymerase chain reaction (ERIC-PCR) assay to ascertain their genetic relatedness. RESULTS: Aerosol study: Overall, 7 of 20 (35%) participants released P. aeruginosa cough aerosols during at least one of the cough aerosol tests. These cough aerosols remained viable for 4 m from the source and for 15 min after coughing. The mean total aerosol count of P. aeruginosa at 2 m was two colony-forming units. Typing study: No shared P. aeruginosa strains were identified. CONCLUSION: Low viable count of P. aeruginosa cough aerosols and a lack of shared P. aeruginosa strains observed suggest that aerosol transmission of P. aeruginosa is an unlikely mode of respiratory infection spread in patients with bronchiectasis and COPD.
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) | 0.000 | 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".