Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary function testing is needed to determine the pathophysiology present in the patient with cardiopulmonary disease. Blood gases and pH should be obtained during emergency situations and during cranial, thoracic, and extensive cervical or abdominal surgery. Lung function tests can be divided in global such as spirometry and diffusing capacity which study the ventilation and transfer of gases and regional determinations of ventilation and perfusion. Both types of tests complement each other and should be used together. The spirometry should consist at least of determination of the vital capacity and is determined in the first second to ascertain if there is obstructive lung disease. Some tests such as flow-volume curves, alveolar-arterial gradients and closing volume are very useful to detect early pulmonary disease before any symptoms or findings are present. This is probably one of the most important medical indications for pulmonary function testing. Before certain types of surgery pulmonary function testing is indicated; if the spirometry and diffusing capacity tests are normal, there is no pulmonary contraindication for the planned surgery. In chest surgery if there is significant compromise of the spirometry and diffusing capacity regional lung function tests are indicated to study the pathophysiology at regional level, thus trying to circumscribe the lung resection to the diseased areas.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".