MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989743546 · doi:10.1002/ppul.20854

Waist circumference associated with pulmonary function in children

2009· article· en· W1989743546 on OpenAlexaff
Yue Chen, Donna Rennie, Yvon Cormier, James A. Dosman

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Pulmonology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversité LavalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWaistPulmonary function testingBody mass indexInternal medicineVital capacityCardiologyPediatricsLung functionLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In adults abdominal obesity is related to lung dysfunction and waist circumference (WC) predicts pulmonary function. It is not known how WC affects pulmonary function in children. A cross-sectional study of 718 children 6-17 years of age was conducted in a rural community to determine the predictability of WC for pulmonary function in children. Height, weight, WC, and pulmonary function were measured. Multivariate analysis was conducted. WC was positively associated with FVC and FEV(1) and was more strongly associated with FVC than with FEV(1). Increase in WC significantly predicted a reduction in FEV(1)/FVC. After adjustment for sex, age, and height, an increase of 1 cm for WC was associated with an increase of 7 ml of FVC and 4 ml of FEV(1), and with an increase of 4 ml of FVC and 2 ml of FEV(1) with an additional adjustment for weight. Height and weight were not significantly associated with FEV(1)/FVC. WC but not body mass index predicted a decline of FEV(1)/FVC. WC had a larger impact on FVC than FEV(1). WC, but not BMI, was negatively associated with FEV(1)/FVC in children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric PulmonologySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207