Effect of transient <i>versus</i> persistent <i>Aspergillus</i> colonisation on clinical outcomes in bronchiectasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>Extract</title> Bronchiectasis is a chronic pulmonary disorder characterized by irreversible dilatation of the bronchi, leading to chronic cough, sputum production, and recurrent respiratory infections [1]. Among the pathogens colonizing the airways of patients with bronchiectasis, <italic>Aspergillus</italic> species are notable due to their potential to exacerbate inflammation and contribute to disease progression [2]. While colonization by <italic>Aspergillus</italic> is recognized in bronchiectasis [3, 4], the differential impact of transient <italic>versus</italic> persistent colonization on clinical outcomes is not well understood. The presence of <italic>Aspergillus</italic> in the airways can range from transient colonization, where the fungus is intermittently present, to persistent colonization, characterized by continuous presence over time [3, 4]. Understanding the implications of these colonization patterns is crucial for guiding clinical management and therapeutic interventions. Outside of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) [5], this has not been systemically evaluated in bronchiectasis. We aimed to evaluate the effects of transient and persistent <italic>Aspergillus</italic> colonization on clinical outcomes in bronchiectasis, hypothesizing that persistent colonization would be associated with worse outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".