Reply: Bronchiolocentric interstitial pneumonia is a morphological term used for lung biopsy and chest imaging pattern and is not a substitute for hypersensitivity pneumonitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract The 2025 European Respiratory Society (ERS)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) task force statement on classification of the interstitial pneumonias was undertaken with a primary goal to simplify the overall approach and standardise terminology for the collection of diffuse lung disorders that affect the interstitial and/or alveolar spaces [1]. This new document updates previous consensus classifications from 2002 and 2013 [2, 3]. G. Raghu and co-workers had differing views from the majority of the 2025 task force committee on the use of “bronchiolocentric interstitial pneumonia” (BIP) as the term for a major interstitial pneumonia pattern that is distinguished from other interstitial patterns by the presence of bronchiolocentric abnormalities. After extensive attempts to find common ground between these perspectives, G. Raghu and co-workers chose to not remain as co-authors of the final document. E.R. Fernández Pérez, and M. Selman and I. Buendía Roldán, have also raised questions about this topic.
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 | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
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".