Reference percentiles of FEV1 for the Canadian cystic fibrosis population: comparisons across time and countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) indicates lung health in cystic fibrosis (CF). FEV1 is commonly communicated as a per cent predicted of a healthy individual sharing the same age, sex, race and height. CF-specific reference equations are complementary and calibrate a patient's FEV1 to that of their CF peers. OBJECTIVES: (1) To derive Canadian CF-specific FEV1 reference percentiles (FEV1%iles), (2) characterize how they have changed over time and (3) compare the Canadian FEV1%iles to those for USA and European CF populations. METHOD: CF FEV1%iles are calculated using the Canadian CF Registry and quantile regression. RESULTS: The Canadian FEV1%iles demonstrated better lung function in more recent time periods within Canada, especially below the 50% percentile and in males. When compared to USA and European FEV1%iles for the same time period, Canadian FEV1%iles were higher. CONCLUSION: CF-specific FEV1%iles can provide useful information about changes in lung health. An online calculator (available at cfpercentile. RESEARCH: sickkids.ca) makes these FEV1%iles accessible.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".