MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corrections to an ATS Workshop Report on Multiple-Breath Washout Testing for Patients with Cystic Fibrosis

2017· erratum· en· W2582920591 on OpenAlexaff
Padmaja Subbarao, Carlos Milla, Wayne J. Morgan, Félix Ratjen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2017
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystic fibrosisWashoutIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple-Breath Washout as a Lung Function Test in Cystic Fibrosis," which was published in the June 2015 issue of the AnnalsATS (1).The corrections regard use of SF 6 as a tracer gas, and limitations and certain other aspects of the Innocor Multiple Breath Washout system.Although SF 6 is a tracer gas, most of the published studies to date have used a noncommercial mass spectrometer-based system using 4% SF 6 .However, the gas concentration for the commercially available SF 6 -based system (Innocor, PulmoTrace, Atlanta, GA) uses substantially reduced concentrations of SF 6 .The expert group believes that the low concentration of SF 6 in the Innocor system likely makes the greenhouse effect of its use immaterial.The statement in the workshop report regarding the limited availability of the SF 6 tracer gas refers to the 4% concentration, and not to the gas supplied with the Innocor/PulmoTrace system.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Innocor using SF 6 in low concentration levels as a medical device.Although the use of mass spectrometers that rely on 4% SF 6 cannot be recommended for clinical trials because of limited availability and cost, those commercial systems such as Innocor that use fractional quantities of SF 6 do not have these limitations, and can continue to make an important contribution in the future.In the workshop report, observations related to Innocor refer to systems delivered in January 2011 or earlier.However, PulmoTrace (the manufacturer of the Innocor system) reports that the workshop report includes certain inaccurate information that the following features and/or capacities were unavailable in the Innocor system at the time of the report: online analysis of data, inclusion of incentive software, published lung model functional residual capacity validation, ability to use the system for preschoolers, and availability of reimbursement code for clinical use.The expert group acknowledges that some of the listed features/capacities may have been present in the Innocor systems from January 2011 or earlier, observed by the group, and the workshop report should have reflected instead the expert group's reservations about the effectiveness of some of these features/capacities.The expert group has no opinion as to whether its reservations about these features are applicable to the Innocor product currently on the market.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.022

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207