Systematic Reporting of Eosinophils in Transbronchial Biopsies After Lung Transplantation Defines a Distinct Inflammatory Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Descriptions of eosinophils in transbronchial biopsy (TBBx) pathology reports after lung transplantation (LTx) are associated with poor long-term outcomes. The absence of routine reporting and standardization precludes accurate assessment of this histologic predictor. A systematic reporting scheme for the presence of TBBx eosinophils after LTx was implemented. This report aims to assess this scheme by describing the presence, pattern, and gradation of TBBx eosinophils and clinical associations. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study of all TBBx reports was performed including all patients presenting for a surveillance or diagnostic TBBx between January 2020 and June 2023. Each TBBx was systematically reported in a blinded manner. Mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to measure the association between concurrent clinical and histologic features, and the presence of TBBx eosinophils. RESULTS: A total of 410 TBBx reports from 201 patients were systematically reported. In 43.8% recipients, any TBBx eosinophils were detected and in 17.1% recipients, higher-grade eosinophils (≥3 per high power field) were present. Adjusted analysis showed that retransplantation, A- and B-grade cellular rejection, positive bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) bacterial microbiology, and elevated blood eosinophil count were independently associated with the presence of any TBBx eosinophils. Diagnostic "for-cause" procedures were independently associated with higher quantities of TBBx eosinophils. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reporting demonstrates that TBBx eosinophils are a distinct inflammatory response associated with rejection, infection, and peripheral eosinophilia. Although these findings require multicenter external validation, standardized reporting for TBBx eosinophils may assist in identifying recipients at risk of poor outcomes and provides a platform for mechanistic research into their role after lung transplantation.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".