Short-term pulmonary infiltrate with eosinophilia caused by asthma: a phenotype of severe, eosinophilic asthma? Five cases and a review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma is often accompanied by peripheral eosinophilia and eosinophilic airway inflammation. This article explores the relationship between asthma and short-term pulmonary infiltrate with eosinophilia, which results from irregular asthma treatment. CASE PRESENTATION: We report five unique cases of asthma-induced short-term eosinophilic pneumonia encountered at our pulmonary and critical care centre in Hunan, China, from January 1, 2014, to August 31, 2018. The 5 asthma patients were women with persistent dyspnoea symptoms, an increased peripheral eosinophil count and a high level of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Chest CT revealed multiple infiltrates and ground-glass opacities in both lung fields in all 5 patients. Four of the 5 patients had increased eosinophils in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). Three were positive for reversibility in lung function testing, and two had eosinophil infiltration as revealed by lung biopsy. No antibiotic treatment was given, and after a short period of glucocorticoid therapy and inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting β2-agonist (ICS + LABA) treatment, the symptoms of all of the patients disappeared. In addition, their blood eosinophils returned to normal, and their lung lesions were quickly absorbed and improved. CONCLUSION: These cases show a unique association between short-term eosinophilic pneumonia and asthma. The occurrence of eosinophilic pneumonia can prove fatal during a serious asthma attack. Additionally, the presence of peripheral eosinophilia with lung infiltrates poses a diagnostic challenge for clinicians by creating suspicion of pulmonary infiltrate with eosinophilia when present in asthmatic patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".