Impact of antigen avoidance test for fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis in stable phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The antigen avoidance has been used in the diagnosis and treatment of hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP); however, its usefulness in stable fibrotic HP is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the usefulness of the antigen avoidance test in patients with fibrotic HP in stable phase. METHODS: The antigen avoidance test was conducted during a 2-week hospitalization comparing clinical parameters at admission and before discharge. A retrospective review of patients who underwent surgical lung biopsy or transbronchial lung cryobiopsy, who were diagnosed with fibrotic HP by multi-disciplinary discussion, and whose disease progression was stable for more than two months before the antigen avoidance test was done. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2021, 40 patients met the criteria, and 17 (43%) patients had a positive antigen avoidance test. The patients with positive in the antigen avoidance test had significantly greater annual forced vital capacity (FVC) decline than those with negative before the test (- 6.5% vs. - 0.3%, p = 0.045). The patients with positive antigen avoidance test had less annual FVC decline than those with negative in the year following the test (0.8% vs. - 5.0%, p = 0.048). The differences in annual improvement were found for serum Krebs von den Lungen-6 between the positive and negative patients in the year following the test (- 27% vs. - 5%, p = 0.049). In multivariate Cox hazard regression analysis, a negative result of the antigen avoidance test was a risk factor for death or acute exacerbation of fibrotic HP (HR = 0.26 [95% CI: 0.07-0.90], p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: In fibrotic HP patients in stable phase, the antigen avoidance test under a 2-week hospitalization was valuable in predicting prognosis.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".