Maximal expiratory flow at FRC (V′max<sub>FRC</sub>): Methods of selection and differences in reported values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared three methods of reporting maximal expiratory flow (V'maxFRC) measured in partial expiratory flow-volume curves (PEFVCs) at the point of functional residual capacity (FRC). PEFVCs were obtained with the rapid thoracoabdominal compression technique (RTC) on a total of 446 occasions in 281 HIV-negative, asymptomatic infants (4.8-28.1 months old). Three different expressions of V'maxFRC were recorded: 1) the highest measured flow (maxV'FRC), 2) the mean of the three highest flows (mean3V'FRC), and 3) the flow at FRC in a composite curve (compV'FRC) consisting of PEFVCs, obtained at different jacket pressures and superimposed at their distal limb. The numerical value of maxV'FRC was 7.4% (+/-5.6%) higher than the mean3V'FRC, and 11.9% (+/-17.7%) higher than the compV'FRC; the mean3V'FRC was 5% (+/-18.3%) higher than the compV'FRC. Bland-Altman analysis was used to evaluate the agreement between the three indices. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement were: maxV'FRC -mean3V'FRC, 14 +/- 18 ml/sec; maxV'FRC - compV'(FRC), 23 +/- 58 ml/sec; and mean3V'(FRC) - compV'(FRC), 10 +/- 52 ml/sec. The differences between the slopes of the three indices (regressed against height) were statistically significant, although clinically unimportant. We conclude that despite their high correlation, the mean3V'FRC and maxV'FRC should not be used interchangeably, and that the composite analysis, although useful, does not improve the reproducibility of V'maxFRC, and thus it cannot be recommended for routine use in its current form.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".