<p>Thoracic Imaging at Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are currently diagnosed based on changes in respiratory symptoms. Characterizing the imaging manifestation of exacerbations could be useful for objective diagnosis of exacerbations in the clinic and clinical trials, as well as provide a mechanism for monitoring exacerbation treatment and recovery. In this systematic review, we employed a comprehensive search across three databases (Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science) to identify studies that performed imaging of the thorax at COPD exacerbation. We included 51 from a total of 5,047 articles which met all our inclusion criteria. We used an adapted version of the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies to assess the quality of the included studies. Conclusions were weighted towards higher-quality articles. We identified a total of 36 thoracic imaging features studied at exacerbation of COPD. Studies were generally heterogeneous in their measurements and focus. Nevertheless, considering studies which performed consecutive imaging at stable state and exacerbation, which scored highest for quality, we identified salient imaging biomarkers of exacerbations. An exacerbation is characterized by airway wall and airway calibre changes, hyperinflation, pulmonary vasoconstriction and imaging features suggestive of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Most information was gained from CT studies. We present the first ever composite imaging signature of COPD exacerbations. While imaging during an exacerbation is comparatively new and not comprehensively studied, it may uncover important insights into the acute pathophysiologic changes in the cardiorespiratory system during exacerbations of COPD, providing objective confirmation of events and a biomarker of recovery and treatment response.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".