A parametric model of the relationship between EIT and total lung volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".