Reliability of a Noninvasive Measure of V/Q Mismatch for Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Currently used definitions of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) lack a continuous measure of disease severity. OBJECTIVES: To determine if an indirect measure of V./Q. mismatch is reliable when simplified to facilitate more widespread use for grading disease severity in BPD at 36 weeks postmenstrual age. METHODS: We used prospectively collected data from 32 preterm infants undergoing an oxygen reduction test at 36 weeks postmenstrual age to perform a simplified indirect assessment of V./Q. mismatch for each infant. Independent raters applied the model, and interrater reliability for a quantitative measure of mismatch was measured by intraclass correlation coefficient. A receiver operating characteristic curve evaluated the impact of increasing degrees of V./Q. mismatch on diagnosing BPD as defined by oxygen reduction test failure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Concordance for the quantitative measure of V./Q. mismatch between independent raters improved from 0.72 (confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.86) to 0.93 (CI, 0.87-0.96) after refinement of instructions for applying the simplified model. Higher degrees of mismatch were increasingly predictive of oxygen reduction test failure, with a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis area under the curve of 0.83 (CI, 0.68-0.99; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: A simplified indirect measure of V./Q. mismatch for diagnosing and grading disease severity in BPD has high reliability and can be performed with data obtained during a standard oxygen reduction test. This should facilitate more widespread investigation of this model as a technique for characterizing BPD severity.
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 | 0.011 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".