Spirometric lung volumes in the adult Pacific Islander population: Comparison with predicted values in a European population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prediction equations for spirometric lung volumes have been developed mainly in Europe and North America and may not be relevant to Pacific Islanders. This study was undertaken to determine whether currently available prediction equations adequately describe spirometric lung volumes in the asymptomatic adult Pacific Islander population. METHODOLOGY: Healthy asymptomatic Pacific Island adults aged 15-70 years were recruited. Pulmonary function was measured in the laboratory at Green Lane Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand, in accordance with American Thoracic Society standards. Measured results were compared with predicted values derived from four sets of prediction equations relevant to, or currently used in, New Zealand. RESULTS: A total of 101 volunteers took part in the study; mean age 28 years (range 18-66 years), 39% male, body mass index = 32 (range 22-54). For forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC), when measured values were compared with reference values, the slopes of the regression lines were not significantly different from 1 and the intercepts were not significantly different from zero. Prediction equations derived for African-Americans did not provide a better fit than the prediction equations for Caucasians. Predictions were improved when ideal rather than actual bodyweight was used. CONCLUSION: Respiratory parameters (FEV1 and FVC) in healthy asymptomatic adult Pacific Islanders in New Zealand are adequately described by currently available prediction equations and no adjustment for ethnicity is required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".