MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Oscillometry to Assess Respiratory Function in Adult Cystic Fibrosis

2020· article· en· W3041235507 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Rad, Jennifer Landry, Liang Dong, Andrea Benedetti, Larry C. Lands, Zoltán Hantos, Ronald J. Dandurand, Elias Matouk, Stewart B. Gottfried

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityChristie (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystic fibrosisMedicineRespiratory systemLung functionInternal medicineCardiologyLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oscillometry to Assess Respiratory Function in Adult Cystic Fibrosis Background and Rationale: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting multi-system disorder in which respiratory dysfunction predominates. Although spirometry is the most commonly used test of pulmonary function, it has recognized limitations. Oscillometry is an alternative test of respiratory function which provides complementary information. Oscillometry also offers a number of practical and physiological advantages and is increasingly used in both clinical research and patient care. Surprisingly, little data exists using oscillometry to evaluate lung function in adults with CF. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to compare spirometry and oscillometry in a large adult CF cohort. Methods: Spirometry and oscillometry (tremoFlo® C-100, Thorasys Thoracic Medical Systems Inc., Montreal, Canada) were performed according to published guidelines during a routine visit to the Montreal Chest Institute Adult CF Clinic, McGill University Health Centre in 92 adults with established CF in stable state (mean age = 33.0 ± SE 1.3 yrs, 51 men). Oscillometry parameters included respiratory resistance at 5 Hz (R5), the difference in respiratory resistance at 5 and 20 Hz (R5-20), respiratory reactance at 5 Hz (X5), respiratory reactance area (AX), and resonant frequency (Fres). Results: Respiratory function was significantly reduced for the group (forced expiratory volume in one second, FEV1 = 2.27 ± SE 0.1 L; Z score = -3.38 ± SE 0.23). There was generally a good to strong correlation between spirometry and oscillometry parameters, particularly between FEV1 and both X5 and AX, and all relationships were highly significant (P < 0.001). Results were generally similar when expressed as absolute values or Z scores. Logistic regression and marginal models estimated via general estimating equations analyses between spirometry and oscillometry parameters showed a significant association between oscillometry parameters (i.e., R5, R5-20, X5, and AX) and abnormal spirometry parameters. Conclusions: Oscillometry appears to be a reliable measure of impaired respiratory function in stable adult CF. Further work is needed to assess its ability to reliably identify changes in function occurring either spontaneously or with therapeutic interventions, particularly in comparison with spirometry, patient reported outcomes, and other measures

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances→French-language works237,207→