Interdevice agreement in respiratory resistance values by oscillometry in asthmatic children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background With several commercially available devices measuring respiratory impedance by oscillometry, the agreement between values obtained on different instruments or frequencies remains unclear. Our aim was to examine the agreement between resistance and reactance parameters on two oscillometry instruments using different waveforms. Methods We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study in asthmatic children aged 3–17 years. Reproducible oscillometry measurements were obtained in random order, by blinded operators, at three modes: 5–10–15–20–25 Hz (5–25 Hz) multifrequency mode on the MasterScreen impulse oscillometry system, and both 5–25 Hz multifrequency mode and 7 Hz monofrequency on the tremoFlo C-100 airwave sinusoidal system. Resistance, reactance and within-breath parameters were examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), paired t-test, linear regression and Bland–Altman method. Results Of 50 participants, 44 and 38 completed between-device and within-frequency measurements, respectively. Between-device measurements at 5–25 Hz showed high (ICC 0.88–0.91) and good (ICC 0.69–0.87) agreement in resistance and reactance, respectively, but with an absolute within-patient difference (≥0.05 kPa·L−1·s−1) and proportional bias (≥30% per kPa·L−1·s−1) in all parameters and oscillatory frequencies, apart from resistance at 5 Hz.A significant proportional bias was documented in most within-breath parameters at 5versus7 Hz on tremoFlo. Conclusion Observed differences in resistance and reactance suggest the need for instrument- and frequency-specific paediatric normative values.
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 | 0.021 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".