The influence of supine posture on chest wall volume changes is higher in obese than in normal weight children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to analyze thoraco-abdominal kinematics in obese children in seated and supine positions during spontaneous quiet breathing. An observational study of pulmonary function and chest wall volume assessed by optoelectronic plethysmography was conducted on 35 children aged 8-12 years that were divided into 2 groups according to weight/height ratio percentiles: there were 18 obese children with percentiles greater than 95 and 17 normal weight children with percentiles of 5-85. Pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1); forced vital capacity (FVC); and FEV1/FVC ratio), ventilatory pattern, total and compartment chest wall volume variations, and thoraco-abdominal asynchronies were evaluated. Tidal volume was greater in seated position. Pulmonary and abdominal rib cage tidal volume and their percentage contribution to tidal volume were smaller in supine position in both obese and control children, while abdominal tidal volume and its percentage contribution was greater in the supine position only in obese children and not in controls. No statistically significant differences were found between obese and control children and between supine and seated positions regarding thoraco-abdominal asynchronies. We conclude that in obese children thoraco-abdominal kinematics is influenced by supine posture, with an increase of the abdominal and a decreased rib cage contribution to ventilation, suggesting that in this posture areas of hypoventilation can occur in the lung.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".