The presence of emphysema on chest imaging and mid-life cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Airflow obstruction is associated with cognitive dysfunction but studies have not assessed how emphysema, a structural phenotype of lung disease, might be associated with cognitive function independent from pulmonary function measured by spirometry. We aimed to determine the relationship between the presence of visually detectable emphysema on chest computed tomography (CT) imaging and cognitive function. Methods We examined 2491 participants, mean age of 50 years, from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study who were assessed for the presence of emphysema on chest CT imaging and had cognitive function measured 5 years later with a battery of six cognitive tests. Results Of those assessed, 172 (7%) had emphysema. After adjusting for age, sex, height, study centre, race, body mass index, education and smoking, visual emphysema was significantly associated with worse performance on most cognitive tests. Compared to those without emphysema, participants with emphysema performed worse on cognitive testing: 0.39sdunits lower (95% CI −0.53– −0.25) on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 0.27sdunits lower (95% CI −0.42– −0.12) on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, 0.29sdunits lower (95% CI −0.43– −0.14) on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test and 0.25sdunits lower (95% CI −0.42– −0.09) on letter fluency. Further adjustment for forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), peak FEV1and annualised FEV1decline did not attenuate these associations. Conclusions The presence of emphysema on chest CT is associated with worse cognitive function, independent of airflow obstruction. These data suggest that emphysema may be a novel risk factor for cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".