Evaluation of a multiple breath nitrogen washout system in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The multiple breath nitrogen washout (MBW) test offers a sensitive measure of airway function. In this study we aim to (a) assess the validity of the EasyOne Pro LAB (MBW ndd ) in an in vitro lung model, (b) assess the feasibility, repeatability, and reproducibility of MBW ndd and (c) compare outcomes with the Exhalyzer D (MBW EM ) and body plethysmography. Methods In vitro, functional residual capacity (FRC) measurements were assessed using a lung model under quasi‐physiological conditions and compared to measured FRC. In vivo plethysmography and MBW were performed in a prospective study of children at two visits (n = 45 healthy; n = 41 cystic fibrosis [CF]). Bland‐Altman plots were used to compare agreement between FRC and lung clearance index (LCI) measurements. Results In vitro FRC ndd measurements were repeatable but lung volumes were underestimated (mean relative difference −5.4% (limits of agreement [LA] −9.6%; −1.1%), 95% confidence interval (CI) −6.27; −4.45). In vivo, compared to plethysmography, FRC ndd was consistently lower (−19.3% [−40.5; 1.9], 95% CI [−23.9; −14.7]), and showed a volume dependency. LCI ndd values were also higher in children with smaller lung volumes. The within‐test coefficient of variation of the FRC ndd and LCI ndd were 4.9% in health, and 5.6% and 6.9% in CF respectively. LCI ndd was reproducible between‐visits (mean relative difference [LA] −3.7% [−14.8, −7.5; 95% CI −6.6; −0.73] in health [n = 17] and 0.34% [−13.2, 22.8; 95% CI −5.0; 5.69] in CF [n = 23]). When calculated using the same algorithm, LCI ndd was similar to LCI EM in health. Conclusions MBW ndd measurements are feasible, repeatable, and reproducible, however, MBW‐derived outcomes are not interchangeable with MBW EM .
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".