Comparison of spirometric results obtained in sitting and standing position in children participating in epidemiological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It9s recommended that spirometric testing in children be completed while sitting, our experience is that children feel more comfortable standing during spirometry. Aim: We sought to compare spirometric results obtained from the sitting (SI) and standing (ST) positions. Method: Two testing sessions were performed in random order (SI vs ST position: testing 30-45 min. apart) in 118 children aged 7-13 y-rs, attending randomly selected, primary school in town of Katowice (response rate: 92%). Results: Tests of acceptable quality were found in 77.9% of ST and 77.1% of SI position - 29 girls and 49 boys (mean age=9.0±1.6 y-rs). The frequency of chronic cough was 33.7%, of chest wheeze was 11.6%, and of attacks of dyspnea was 9.0%. Higher values of spirometric variables on ST, compared to SI position, were for FVC (2.12±0.41 l vs 2.11±0.39 l) and FEV1 (1.78±0.36 l vs 1.77±0.35) but the differences were not statistically significant. Mean relative between-position differences [RBPD] were for FVC: 5.5±4.5%, FEV1: 5.8±6.6%, PEF: 12.4±9.5%, and FEF2575: 15.9±16.8%. RBPD ≤ 5% was found in: FVC: 56.4 %, FEV1: 69.2 %, PEF: 21.7%, and FEF2575: 24.3%. Patterns for FEF25, FEF50, and FEF75 were similar. RBPD were related to age in the case of FEV1 (p=0.005), FEF25 (p=0.02), FEF2575 (p=0.01) where older children had smaller RBPD. FVC RBPD was lower (p=0.01) in subjects with current wheeze while PEF RBPD was lower (p=0.02) in children with asthma. No cases of adverse events. Conclusion: In epidemiological studies of children, the position of spirometric testing does not seem to affect the result of lung function assessment or the safety level of the measuring procedure.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".