The effect of duration and number of measurements on respiratory resistance and reactance in airways disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The forced oscillation technique (FOT) is established in research settings. Commercial device availablility facilitates its adoption for clinical use. Guidelines recommend 3-5 technically acceptable measurements, however the optimum number or duration of FOT measurements has not been systematically determined, especially in asthma and COPD. Aim: To compare the effect of different duration and number of measurements on FOT results in asthma and COPD. Methods: 21 subjects (8 male) with asthma or COPD breathed tidally on a tremoFlo C-100 (Thorasys Medical Systems, Canada) FOT device for 60 s, repeated 3 times. Within-breath analysis was performed on the first 16, 30 and 60 s of each measurement to obtain total, inspiratory and expiratory Rrs and Xrs at 5 Hz. The effects of duration and of averaging the first 1, 2 and 3 measurements were examined separately using one-way repeated measures ANOVA. Results: There were no significant differences between 16, 30 or 60-s measurements (n=54 measurements) . There were also no significant differences between taking the first 1, 2 or 3 measurements, for any measurement duration (n=15 subjects). Conclusions: FOT results are not affected by duration or number of measurements. The decision for optimum settings should take into account variability, breathing rate and practical considerations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".