Assuring consistency of respiratory resistance measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have developed a simple pulmonary diagnostic device that measures respiratory resistance of adults and children. The device is Airflow Perturbation Device (APD). There are many commercially available respiratory diagnostic devices in clinical use, but the major advantage of the APD is that it is an effortless device that evaluates the respiratory resistance effortlessly. Further, it can do this only by normal breathing through the device for less than one minute. To assure the consistency of the respiratory resistance values obtained using the APD, we designed a system that simulates the normal range of human breathing. We further compared the APD readings with a clinically accepted respiratory diagnostic system, the Impulse Oscillometry (IOS). IOS is an FDA approved system that also, similar to APD, measures respiratory resistance. The measurements using the APD and IOS were conducted at constant volumetric flow rate of 0.15 L·s-1. The results show that the resistance values obtained from the APD and IOS were consistent and linearly correlated (R2=0.999), we were then assured that the respiratory resistance values obtained using the APD are valid and consistent.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".