The Assessment of Maximal Respiratory Mouth Pressures In Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximal expiratory pressure (MEP) are simple, convenient, and noninvasive indices of respiratory muscle strength at the mouth, but standards are not clearly established. We review recent literature, update the 2002 American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement, and propose as the best choice using a flanged mouthpiece for reference values and lower limit of normal (LLN) values as a function of age for adults age up to about 70 years. Because male pressures are higher than female and MEP exceeds MIP, we present 4 linear regression reference equations as a function of age for adults age up to approximately 70 years: Male MIP=120-(0.41xage), and male MIP LLN=62-(0.15xage). Male MEP=174-(0.83xage), and male MEP LLN=117-(0.83xage). Female MIP=108-(0.61xage), and female MIP LLN=62-(0.50xage). Female MEP=131-(0.86xage), and female MEP LLN=95-(0.57xage). (Pressure in cm H2O and age in years.) We discuss normal values in older subjects, estimation of LLN values, and the relationship between vital capacity and respiratory muscle strength, and offer a guide to interpretation of maximal pressure measurements. The approach should allow direct implementation of MIP and MEP in a pulmonary function laboratory.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".