ArticleDiagnostic cytopathology2026
Reproducibility and Diagnostic Utility of a Simplified Oil Red O Test in Infant Bronchoalveolar Lavage Samples.
Article in Diagnostic cytopathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reproducibility and Diagnostic Utility of a Simplified Oil Red O Test in Infant Bronchoalveolar Lavage Samples.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAspiration in infants is a diagnostic challenge. The lipid-laden macrophage index (LLMI) developed in 1987 has been used as a supportive test; however, numerous recent studies have questioned its value and reproducibility. We evaluated a simplified LLMI in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens from a pediatric cohort to assess its diagnostic utility.
methodsBALs from infants were prospectively collected over a 6-month period for Oil Red O (ORO) staining to evaluate aspiration. BALs from adults with non-aspiration pathologies were simultaneously collected for comparison. Clinical and demographic data were gathered to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the test. Only samples containing ≥ 100 evaluable macrophages and free of obscuring blood or inflammation were included. Positive staining was assessed at low magnification (10×), with only clearly positive cells (Colombo-Hallberg scores 3 and 4) considered. A dichotomous threshold of < 50% or ≥ 50% positive macrophages was established through multidisciplinary consensus. To ensure consistency, a training session was conducted for the entire cytopathology division on the newly developed interpretation criteria.
results88/134 (66%) pediatric BAL samples with suspected aspiration and 63/75 (84%) adult samples with various non-aspiration pathologies were adequate for analysis. Aspiration status in children was determined using multidisciplinary aerodigestive group evaluation (MAGE) and videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS). Test performance was assessed at various cutoffs. In the pediatric cohort (mean age 16.5 months, 58% male), aspiration was diagnosed in 47% by MAGE. Strong associations were seen with atopia/asthma (83%), functional dysphagia (64%), and congenital/developmental disorders (43%). A significant difference in ≥ 50% lipid-laden macrophage involvement was observed between pediatric (12%) and adult (51%) samples (p < 0.00001). Using MAGE and VFSS as gold standards, the test showed poor discriminatory power for detecting aspiration in infants (AUC 0.506-0.587). A 10% cutoff yielded the best performance (AUC 0.587, sensitivity 27%, specificity 93%), while a 50% cutoff offered practical advantages in workflow and reproducibility.
conclusionsThe modified LLMI demonstrates limited diagnostic value for aspiration in infants. While a 10% cutoff offers slightly improved performance, the test may be phased out in favor of more reliable diagnostic methods.
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.