Airway Eosinophilia on Bronchoalveolar Lavage and the Risk of Exacerbations in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The associations between airway eosinophilia, measured in sputum or peripheral blood, and acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are inconsistent. We therefore aimed to determine the association between eosinophilia in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and AECOPD in a clinical cohort. We analyzed differential cell counts from baseline BAL fluid in participants in the DISARM clinical trial (Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT02833480) and classified participants by the presence or absence of BAL eosinophilia (>1% of total leukocytes). We determined the association between BAL eosinophilia and AECOPD over 1 year of follow-up using negative binomial regression and Cox proportional hazards test. N = 63 participants were randomized, and N = 57 had BAL differential cell counts available. Participants with BAL eosinophilia (N = 21) had a significantly increased rate of acute exacerbations (unadjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 2.0, p = 0.048; adjusted IRR 2.24, p = 0.04) and a trend toward greater probability of acute exacerbation (unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.74, p = 0.13; adjusted HR 2.3, p = 0.1) in the year of follow-up compared to participants without BAL eosinophilia (N = 36). These associations were not observed for BAL neutrophilia (N = 41 participants), BAL lymphocytosis (N = 27 participants) or peripheral blood eosinophilia at various threshold definitions (2%, N = 37; 3%, N = 27; 4%, N = 16). BAL may therefore be a sensitive marker of eosinophilic inflammation in the distal lung and may be of benefit for risk stratification or biomarker-guided therapy in COPD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".