MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235381194 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-297911/v1

Underestimation of Luminal Eosinophilia by Quantitative Sputum Cytometry

2021· preprint· en· W4235381194 on OpenAlexafffund
Melanie Kjarsgaard, Adil Adatia, Anurag Bhalla, Nicola LaVigne, Katherine Radford, Chynna Huang, Manali Mukherjee, Parameswaran Nair

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Disorders and Syndromes
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesAstraZeneca
KeywordsEosinophiliaEosinophilSputumEosinophilicMedicineNeutrophiliaImmunologyInternal medicinePathologyGastroenterologyAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: On Wright-stained sputum cytospins, eosinophil differential of >1.2% is considered abnormal and ≥3% clinically relevant. We hypothesized that failure to consider free eosinophil granules (FEG), and the re-emergence of eosinophilia (at ≥1.2 and ≥2.3%) underestimate the prevalence of the eosinophilic phenotype. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of our Institutional Review Board-approved clinical sputum database. Of the 24,176 examinations, 17,693 had viable cell counts from 9570 patients (6604 on one occasion, 2967 with two or more) with various airway diseases. In all samples, FEGs were semi-quantified to estimate the prevalence of eosinophilia at <1.2 and <2.3%. In those patients with sputum examined on more than one occasion, subsequent results identified re-emergence of eosinophilia at ³1.2 and ³2.3%. Results: Of those with intact cell counts (n=15,278), 8562 (56.0%) and 9690 (63.4%) would have been classified as clinically non-relevant eosinophilia of <1.2% and <2.3% respectively. Among those with two or more intact cell counts, 1142 (38.5%) and 1083 (36.5%) of samples had re-emergence of eosinophilia (at 1.2 and 2.3%), either when a previous neutrophilia resolved (n= 218/19.1%, n=312/28.8%) or due to a reduction in the dose of corticosteroids (n=634/21.4%, n=666/22.4%) with no significant differences between groups (p=0.018). There was a significant difference between the proportions of eosinophilic versus non-eosinophilic at 1.2 and 2.3%, using the presence of FEG and the non-intact cell count (p<0.001). Conclusions: A total of 3180 (32.8%) samples identified as non-eosinophilic, had clinically relevant airway eosinophilia that would not have been identified if the phenotypic classification was limited to ≥2.3% intact eosinophils on one occasion. This underestimation is likely to be significantly more if other means of airway eosinophilic activity were included and if mast cell activity and lymphocyte numbers, (not routinely quantified by sputum cytometry), could be contributing to the under-appreciation of airway T2 inflammatory processes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicEosinophilic Disorders and SyndromesFrench-language works237,207