Peak expiratory flow values are higher in older and taller healthy male children: An observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Peak expiratory flow (PEF) was measured in healthy children aged five to ten years in order to provide baseline values and to determine correlations between PEF and factors such as gender, age and type of school. METHODS: After the Ethical Committee of Research in Human of the School of Medicine of ABC - FMABC approval, PEF and height were measured in 1942 children between five and ten years old from nine public schools and nine private schools throughout São Bernardo do Campo City. PEF was measured using the Mini-Wright Peak Flow Meter (Clement Clarke International Ltd.) and. height was measured using a Sanny professional stadiometer . RESULTS: Significant differences were found in values for PEF: higher values were seen in older students in comparison with younger students, in males in comparison with females and in students from private schools in comparison with public schools, with average values ranging from 206 L/min to 248 L/min,. Linear correlations were seen for PEF values with both height and age (Spearman Coefficient). CONCLUSIONS: Differences were seen for PEF between genders and between types of school, and a linear correlation was seen for PEF with both age and height in healthy children from five to ten years old.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".