Comparison of spirometric results obtained from the sitting and standing position in children participating in an epidemiological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: It is recommended that spirometric testing in children be completed while sitting.Our experience indicates that children prefer standing during spirometry.Aim: We sought to compare spirometric results obtained from the sitting (SIP) and standing (STP) positions.Material and methods: Two testing sessions were performed in random order (SIP vs. STP: 30-45 min apart) in 118 children (7-13 years), attending one, randomly selected, primary school (response rate: 92%).Results: Acceptable quality was found in 77.9% of STP and 77.1% of SIP maneuvers.Higher values of spirometric variables on STP, compared to SIP, were obtained for forced vital capacity (FVC) (2.12 ±0.41 l vs. 2.11 ±0.39 l) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) (1.78 ±0.36 l vs. 1.77±0.35 l) but the differences were not statistically significant.Relative between-position differences (RBPD) ≤ 5% were found with the following frequencies: FVC: 56.4%, FEV 1 : 69.2%, PEF: 21.7%, and FEF 25-75 : 24.3%.Similar patterns were found for FEF 25 , FEF 50 , and FEF 75 .Relative between-position differences were related to age in the case of FEV 1 (p = 0.005), FEF 25 (p = 0.02), and FEF 25-75 (p = 0.01) where older children had smaller RBPD.Forced vital capacity RBPD was lower (p = 0.01) in subjects with current wheeze; PEF RBPD were lower (p = 0.02) in children with asthma.Conclusions: In epidemiological studies, the position of spirometric testing does not affect the results of lung function assessment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".