MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3202331622 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052931

Spirometry parameters used to define small airways obstruction in population-based studies: systematic review protocol

2021· article· en· W3202331622 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ben Knox‐Brown, Octavia Mulhern, André F.S. Amaral

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart and Lung Institute
KeywordsMedicineSpirometrySystematic reviewPopulationMEDLINEMeta-analysisProtocol (science)Study heterogeneityGrading (engineering)Subgroup analysisIntensive care medicineAlternative medicinePathologyEnvironmental healthAsthmaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the use of spirometry for the assessment of small airways obstruction (SAO) driven by the idea that these changes occur prior to development of established obstructive lung disease. Maximal mid-expiratory and distal flow rates have been widely used despite a lack of agreement regarding parameter selection or definition of an abnormal result. We aim to provide evidence from population-based studies, describing the different parameters, definitions of normal range and the resulting impact on prevalence estimates for SAO. Summarising this evidence is important to inform development of future studies in this area. Methods and analysis A systematic review of population-based studies will be conducted. MEDLINE, Web of Science and Google Scholar will be searched from database inception to May 2021. Primary outcomes will include the spirometry parameter used to define SAO, and the definition of an abnormal result. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed for study selection. Study methods will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group methodology. Narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies. Meta-analysis will also be conducted for prevalence estimates and associated risk factors where data quality and availability allow. Random effects models will be used to conduct the meta-analysis and I 2 statistics will be used to assess heterogeneity across studies. Where appropriate subgroup analysis will be conducted to explore heterogeneity. Ethics and dissemination There is no requirement for ethical approval for this project. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and other formats, for example, conferences, congresses or symposia. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021250206.

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.015
Bibliometrics0.0160.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0940.012

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→