Pulmonary Functional Imaging: Part 2—State-of-the-Art Clinical Applications and Opportunities for Improved Patient Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary functional imaging may be defined as the regional quantification of lung function by using primarily CT, MRI, and nuclear medicine techniques. The distribution of pulmonary physiologic parameters, including ventilation, perfusion, gas exchange, and biomechanics, can be noninvasively mapped and measured throughout the lungs. This information is not accessible by using conventional pulmonary function tests, which measure total lung function without viewing the regional distribution. The latter is important because of the heterogeneous distribution of virtually all lung disorders. Moreover, techniques such as hyperpolarized xenon 129 and helium 3 MRI can probe lung physiologic structure and microstructure at the level of the alveolar-air and alveolar-red blood cell interface, which is well beyond the spatial resolution of other clinical methods. The opportunities, challenges, and current stage of clinical deployment of pulmonary functional imaging are reviewed, including applications to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary embolism, and pulmonary hypertension. Among the challenges to the deployment of pulmonary functional imaging in routine clinical practice are the need for further validation, establishment of normal values, standardization of imaging acquisition and analysis, and evidence of patient outcomes benefit. When these challenges are addressed, it is anticipated that pulmonary functional imaging will have an expanding role in the evaluation and management of patients with lung disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".