Lymphoid Interstitial Pneumonia (LIP) Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of lymphoid interstitial pneumonia (LIP) as a diagnostic term has changed considerably since its introduction. Utilizing a multi-institutional collection of 201 cases from the last 20 years that demonstrate features associated with the LIP rubric, we compared cases meeting strict histologic criteria of LIP per American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) consensus ("pathologic LIP"; n=62) with cystic cases fulfilling radiologic ATS/ERS criteria ("radiologic LIP"; n=33) and with other diffuse benign lymphoid proliferations. "Pathologic LIP" was associated with immune dysregulation including autoimmune disorders and immune deficiency, whereas "radiologic LIP" was only seen with autoimmune disorders. No case of idiopathic LIP was found. On histology, "pathologic LIP" represented a subgroup of 70% (62/88) of cases with the distinctive pattern of diffuse expansile lymphoid infiltrates. In contrast, "radiologic LIP" demonstrated a broad spectrum of inflammatory patterns, airway-centered inflammation being most common (52%; 17/33). Only 5 cases with radiologic cysts also met consensus ATS/ERS criteria for "pathologic LIP." Overall, broad overlap was observed with the remaining study cases that failed to meet consensus criteria for "radiologic LIP" and/or "pathologic LIP." These data raise concerns about the practical use of the term LIP as currently defined. What radiologists and pathologist encounter as LIP differs remarkably, but neither "radiologic LIP" nor "pathologic LIP" present with sufficiently distinct findings to delineate such cases from other patterns of diffuse benign lymphoid proliferations. As a result of this study, we believe LIP should be abandoned as a pathologic and radiologic diagnosis.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".