Children Should Not Be Treated Like Little Adults in the PFT Lab
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years a great deal of effort has been made to standardize all pulmonary function tests on adults. Many of the "rules" concerning the interpretation of the spirogram have been based entirely on adult observations. In the age of increasing conformity, and attempts to relate "adult" literature to the pediatric population, the latter was given much less emphasis than the former. This review will attempt to show what areas in pulmonary function testing are similar in adults and children, but more specifically will show the areas that are different. The latest standards published by the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society in 2005 have attempted to incorporate some differences for the pediatric population for spirometry, but more work needs to be done in this area. While it is recognized that spirometry is the primary pulmonary function test for children, there are a number of circumstances where the addition of plethysmography and lung diffusion measurements are necessary. The review will state some of the limitations of these tests when performed by children. Lung function testing, particularly spirometry, has much to offer in the diagnosis of lung disease in children and the monitoring of response to therapy. With better standardization of pulmonary function testing in children, and more trained technologists, the age limits for testing can be extended to below 6 years of age and sometimes below 5. Also with better standardization the results obtained are meaningful and when interpreted in context of age offer excellent diagnostic information to better treat the child with lung disease.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it