Pulmonary Alveolar Microlithiasis: CT and pathologic findings in 10 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: To evaluate CT findings of pulmonary alveolar microlithiasis and correlate the CT with the pathologic findings. METHODS: The study included 10 patients with pathologically proven microlithiasis. Two independent observers evaluated the presence, extent and distribution of the CT findings. CT findings were compared with those at autopsy in two patients and with transbronchial biopsy in eight patients. RESULTS: All patients had a myriad of calcified nodules measuring approximately 1 mm in diameter. Close apposition of the nodules resulted in areas of ground-glass attenuation and consolidation, which were the predominant abnormality on CT in all 10 patients, involving 41% +/- 16.3 (mean +/- SD) and 30% +/- 4.8 of the lung parenchyma, respectively. Calcifications were also seen along interlobular septa, bronchovascular bundles and pleura. Other findings included interlobular septal thickening, thickening of bronchovascular bundles, nodules, and subpleural cysts. There was a solid agreement between the observers for the presence (kappa value; 0.77) and extent (Spearman rank correlation; r = 0.81 to 1.0 p < 0.01) of abnormalities. Autopsy specimens demonstrated microliths in alveolar airspaces and along interlobular septa, bronchovascular bundles and pleura. Subpleural small cysts were shown to represent dilated alveolar ducts. CONCLUSION: Pulmonary microlithiasis is characterised by the presence of numerous small, calcified nodules, calcifications along interlobular septa, bronchovascular bundles and pleura, ground-glass opacities, consolidation, and subpleural cysts. The cysts represent dilated alveolar ducts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".