Technical standards for respiratory oscillometry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oscillometry (also known as the forced oscillation technique) measures the mechanical properties of the respiratory system (upper and intrathoracic airways, lung tissue and chest wall) during quiet tidal breathing, by the application of an oscillating pressure signal (input or forcing signal), most commonly at the mouth. With increased clinical and research use, it is critical that all technical details of the hardware design, signal processing and analyses, and testing protocols are transparent and clearly reported to allow standardisation, comparison and replication of clinical and research studies. Because of this need, an update of the 2003 European Respiratory Society (ERS) technical standards document was produced by an ERS task force of experts who are active in clinical oscillometry research. The aim of the task force was to provide technical recommendations regarding oscillometry measurement including hardware, software, testing protocols and quality control. The main changes in this update, compared with the 2003 ERS task force document are 1) new quality control procedures which reflect use of “within-breath” analysis, and methods of handling artefacts; 2) recommendation to disclose signal processing, quality control, artefact handling and breathing protocols ( e.g. number and duration of acquisitions) in reports and publications to allow comparability and replication between devices and laboratories; 3) a summary review of new data to support threshold values for bronchodilator and bronchial challenge tests; and 4) updated list of predicted impedance values in adults and children.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it