Characterizing Lung Particulates Using Quantitative Microscopy in Coal Miners With Severe Pneumoconiosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: Current approaches for characterizing retained lung dust using pathologists' qualitative assessment or scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS) have limitations. OBJECTIVE.—: To explore polarized light microscopy coupled with image-processing software, termed quantitative microscopy-particulate matter (QM-PM), as a tool to characterize in situ dust in lung tissue of US coal miners with progressive massive fibrosis. DESIGN.—: We developed a standardized protocol using microscopy images to characterize the in situ burden of birefringent crystalline silica/silicate particles (mineral density) and carbonaceous particles (pigment fraction). Mineral density and pigment fraction were compared with pathologists' qualitative assessments and SEM/EDS analyses. Particle features were compared between historical (born before 1930) and contemporary coal miners, who likely had different exposures following changes in mining technology. RESULTS.—: Lung tissue samples from 85 coal miners (62 historical and 23 contemporary) and 10 healthy controls were analyzed using QM-PM. Mineral density and pigment fraction measurements with QM-PM were comparable to consensus pathologists' scoring and SEM/EDS analyses. Contemporary miners had greater mineral density than historical miners (186 456 versus 63 727/mm3; P = .02) and controls (4542/mm3), consistent with higher amounts of silica/silicate dust. Contemporary and historical miners had similar particle sizes (median area, 1.00 versus 1.14 μm2; P = .46) and birefringence under polarized light (median grayscale brightness: 80.9 versus 87.6; P = .29). CONCLUSIONS.—: QM-PM reliably characterizes in situ silica/silicate and carbonaceous particles in a reproducible, automated, accessible, and time/cost/labor-efficient manner, and shows promise as a tool for understanding occupational lung pathology and targeting exposure controls.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".