Comparison of spirometric reference values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung-function reference values play a vital role in the management of respiratory disorders. There are many proposed reference equations for pediatric spirometry. Recently, spirometric reference equations were proposed, using data from people aged 8-80 years living in the US compiled by the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Our objective was to compare the predictive value of wider age-range reference equations to established pediatric reference equations for the pediatric population. Spirometry, height, and weight were obtained from 70 normal children aged 6-18 years. The difference between measured and predicted values as suggested by different reference equations was compared. Predicted values from general equations significantly differed from those generated from pediatric equations and from measured values in this population. The difference between measured and predicted values from the wider age-range equations varied between 7-16% for forced expired volume in 1 sec (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC). The difference between measured and predicted values for the pediatric equations varied between 1-4%. Although wider age-range equations provide continuity through age ranges, their predictive accuracy may be low in the pediatric age group, especially for the youngest, smallest children. Extrapolating reference equations beyond the age range of subjects used to generate then is not recommended.
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 | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".