Global Lung Function Initiative 2012 reference equations for spirometry in the Norwegian population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the fit of the Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) all-age reference values to Norwegians, compared them with currently used references (European Community for Steel and Coal (ECSC) and Zapletal) and estimated the prevalence of obstructive lung disease. Spirometry data collected in 30 239 subjects (51.7% females) aged 12–90 years in three population-based studies were converted to z-scores. We studied healthy non-smokers comprising 2438 adults (57.4% females) aged 20–90 years and 8725 (47.7% female) adolescents aged 12–19 years. The GLI-2012 prediction equations fitted the Norwegian data satisfactorily. Median±sdz-scores were respectively 0.02±1.03, 0.01±1.04 and −0.04±0.91 for forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and FEV1/FVC in males, and −0.01±1.02, 0.07±0.97 and −0.21±0.82 in females. The ECSC and Zapletal references significantly underestimated FEV1and FVC. Stricter criteria of obstruction (FEV1/FVC 1/FVC <0.7 and >GLI-2012 LLN. Corresponding comparison regarding myocardial infarction showed a four-fold higher risk for women. The GLI-2012 reference values fit the Norwegian data satisfactorily and are recommended for use in Norway. Correspondingly, the FEV1/FVC GLI-2012 LLN identifies higher risk of obstructive characteristics than FEV1/FVC <0.7.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".