MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995325863 · doi:10.1088/0967-3334/26/4/006

A parametric model of the relationship between EIT and total lung volume

2005· article· en· W1995325863 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpirometerElectrical impedance tomographySupine positionLung volumesBreathingTidal volumeSpirometryMathematicsNuclear medicineStatisticsMedicineTomographyLungAnatomyAnesthesiaInternal medicineRadiologyRespiratory systemAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spirometry and electrical impedance tomography (EIT) data from 26 healthy subjects (14 males, 12 females) were used to develop a model linking contrast variations in EIT difference images to lung volume changes. Eight recordings, each 64 s long, were made for each subject in four postures (standing, sitting, reclining at 45 degrees, supine) and two breathing modes (quiet tidal and deep breathing). Age, gender and five anthropometric variables were recorded. The database was divided into four subsets. The first subset, data from 22 subjects (12 males, 10 females) recorded in deep breathing mode, was used to create the model. Validation was done with the other subsets: data recorded during quiet tidal breathing in the same 22 subjects, and data recorded in both breathing modes for the other four subjects. A quadratic equation in DeltaV(P) (lung volume changes recorded by the spirometer) provided a very good fit to total contrast changes in the EIT images. The model coefficients were found to depend on posture, gender, thoracic circumference and scapular skin fold. To validate the model, the quadratic equation was inverted to estimate lung volume changes from the EIT images. The estimated changes were then compared to the measured volume changes. Validations with each data subset yielded mean standard errors ranging from 9.3% to 12.4%. The proposed model is a first step in enabling inter individual comparisons of EIT images since: (1) it provides a framework for incorporating the effects of anthropometric variables, gender and posture, and (2) it references the images to a physical quantity (volume) verifiable by spirometry.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.145 · 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