Differentiating COPD and asthma using quantitative CT imaging and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There are similarities and differences between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma patients in terms of computed tomography (CT) disease-related features. Our objective was to determine the optimal subset of CT imaging features for differentiating COPD and asthma using machine learning. Methods COPD and asthma patients were recruited from Heidelberg University Hospital (Heidelberg, Germany). CT was acquired and 93 features were extracted: percentage of low-attenuating area below −950 HU (LAA 950 ), low-attenuation cluster (LAC) total hole count, estimated airway wall thickness for an idealised airway with an internal perimeter of 10 mm (Pi10), total airway count (TAC), as well as airway inner/outer perimeters/areas and wall thickness for each of five segmental airways, and the average of those five airways. Hybrid feature selection was used to select the optimum number of features, and support vector machine learning was used to classify COPD and asthma. Results 95 participants were included (n=48 COPD and n=47 asthma); there were no differences between COPD and asthma for age (p=0.25) or forced expiratory volume in 1 s (p=0.31). In a model including all CT features, the accuracy and F1 score were 80% and 81%, respectively. The top features were: LAA 950 , outer airway perimeter, inner airway perimeter, TAC, outer airway area RB1, inner airway area RB1 and LAC total hole count. In the model with only CT airway features, the accuracy and F1 score were 66% and 68%, respectively. The top features were: inner airway area RB1, outer airway area LB1, outer airway perimeter, inner airway perimeter, Pi10, TAC, airway wall thickness RB1 and TAC LB10. Conclusion COPD and asthma can be differentiated using machine learning with moderate-to-high accuracy by a subset of only seven CT features.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".