Functional respiratory assessment: some key misconceptions and their clinical implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear editors, There are few specialties in which the functional evaluation assumes the same pivotal role as in respiratory medicine. Although the patterns of abnormalities exposed by pulmonary function tests are not pathognomonic, they are frequently helpful to narrow the diagnostic alternatives. In the right clinical context, the absence of functional abnormality might be reassuring. Testing results can provide useful information for the longitudinal assessment of patients with known respiratory diseases; moreover, they might have an auxiliary role on risk stratification and prognosis estimation. Unfortunately, there has been a progressive abandonment of applied respiratory physiology in favour of basic sciences and molecular medicine. Accordingly, controversial issues on pulmonary function tests interpretation are much less discussed nowadays compared with a few decades ago. It should also be recognised that some key concepts in the interpretation of spirometry, ‘static’ lung volumes and cardiopulmonary exercise testing are still based on physiological constructs rather than evidence from prospective trials. With the intent of igniting some critical reflections on the current role of the laboratory of lung function tests on clinical decision making in our field, I herein challenge some deeply entrenched interpretative beliefs. They have been selected based on our long-standing interaction with learners and seasoned pulmonologists. In each scenario, I discuss the reasons why a given statement might be misleading, and the potential clinical consequences of testing misinterpretation. If feasible, I suggest some strategies to avoid the underlying pitfalls. There is little disagreement that, in the right clinical context, a FEV1/FVC ratio <the lower limit of normal (LLN) rules in obstruction (though, by definition, 5% of normal subjects have an FEV1/FVC ratio <LLN). However, if the small airways close precociously during the forced expiratory manoeuvre in a subject with airway disease, FVC might decrease more (or to the same …
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".