ArticlePloS one2024
Particle analysis of surgical lung biopsies from deployed and non-deployed US service members during the Global War on Terrorism.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative lung particulate analysis links increased anthracotic pigment burden to burn pit exposure in post-9/11 veterans with distal lung disease.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Current understanding of the impact of United States military airborne hazards and burn pit exposures on respiratory health.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role that inhaled particulate matter plays in the development of post-deployment lung disease among US service members deployed to Southwest Asia during the Global War on Terrorism has been difficult to define. There is a persistent gap in data addressing the relationship between relatively short-term (months to a few years) exposures to high levels of particulate matter during deployment and the subsequent development of adverse pulmonary outcomes. Surgical lung biopsies from deployed service members and veterans (DSMs) and non-deployed service members and veterans (NDSMs) who develop lung diseases can be analyzed to potentially identify residual deployment-specific particles and develop associations with pulmonary pathological diagnoses. We examined 52 surgical lung biopsies from 25 DSMs and 27 NDSMs using field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) with energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) to identify any between-group differences in the number and composition of retained inorganic particles, then compared the particle analysis results with the original histopathologic diagnoses. We recorded a higher number of total particles in biopsies from DSMs than from NDSMs, and this difference was mainly accounted for by geologic clays (illite, kaolinite), feldspars, quartz/silica, and titanium-rich silicate mixtures. Biopsies from DSMs deployed to other Southwest Asia regions (SWA-Other) had higher particle counts than those from DSMs primarily deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, due mainly to illite. Distinct deployment-specific particles were not identified. Particles did not qualitatively associate with country of deployment. The individual diagnoses of the DSMs and NDSMs were not associated with elevated levels of total particles, metals, cerium oxide, or titanium dioxide particles. These results support the examination of particle-related lung disease in DSMs in the context of comparison groups, such as NDSMs, to assist in determining the strength of associations between specific pulmonary pathology diagnoses and deployment-specific inorganic particulate matter exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.