Sternum Length and Rib Cage Dimensions Compared with Bodily Proportions in Adults with Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A greater structural expansion of the rib cage in females compared with males has been described in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients; however, conflicting data exist as to whether an elongation of the bony ribs and sternum contributes to this expansion. OBJECTIVES: To compare height-adjusted anthropometric measures and sternum length between a group of normal subjects and a group of CF patients of both sexes. METHODS: Anthropometric measurements including body weight, height, upper and lower limb lengths, biacromial distance and pelvic width were measured in the standing position in 30 CF patients (13 males) and 28 normal subjects (14 males). Body surface measurements of anterior-posterior and lateral diameters of the rib cage at functional residual capacity, and sternum length were also obtained. RESULTS: Compared with normal subjects, CF patients had lower body weight, shorter standing height and shorter height-adjusted upper and lower limb lengths. Rib cage diameters were greater in CF patients than in normal subjects of either sex, but height-adjusted sternum length was not different. CONCLUSION: Significant differences in bodily proportions were found between normal subjects and CF patients, suggesting a differential growth pattern for the trunk and limbs. However, increased rib cage dimensions with lung hyperinflation and airway obstruction was not associated with an elongation of the sternum.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".