Lung Cryobiopsy Outside of the Operating Room: A Safe Alternative to Surgical Biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) is a promising technique that can provide a histologic diagnosis in interstitial lung diseases (ILD) and is an alternative to surgical lung biopsy. The main concerns with the procedure are safety and diagnostic accuracy. The technique is applicable in patients unable to undergo surgical biopsy due to severe comorbidities or when patient transport to the operating room is dangerous. This study reports the initial experience with TBLC on a thoracic surgical service as a first attempt at diagnosis in patients with diffuse parenchymal lung diseases (DPLD). Methods Between May 2018 and July 2020, 32 patients underwent TBLC using bedside flexible bronchoscopy for suspected ILD on a thoracic surgical endoscopy service. Retrospective evaluation of the procedure details, complications, and diagnostic yield were analyzed and reported. Results A total of 89 pathological samples were obtained (mean 2.8 per patient). Pneumothorax and minor bleeding occurred in 25% and 16.7% of patients, respectively. Sixty-seven percent of complications occurred with use of the 2.4 mm cryoprobe ( P = 0.036). Concordance between the histologic diagnosis and final clinical diagnosis was observed in 62.5% of patients and the pathology guided the final treatment in 71% ( P = 0.027) with Kappa-concordance of 0.60 ( P < 0.001). Conclusions Cryobiopsy is becoming part of the diagnostic evaluation in patients with indeterminate DPLD or hypoxemic respiratory failure. TBLC is easy to perform and has a favorable safety profile. Thoracic specialists should consider adding TBLC to their procedural armamentarium as a first option for patients with indeterminate PLD.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".