How do Cormic Index profiles contribute to differences in spirometry values between White and First Nations Australian children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Spirometry values of First Nations Australian children are lower than White children. One explanation relates to differences in the sitting‐height/standing‐height ratio (Cormic Index), as this accounts for up to half the observed differences in spirometry values between White children and other ethnicities. We investigated whether the Cormic Index of First Nations children differs from White children and if this explains the lower spirometry values of First Nations children. Methods First Nations children ( n = 619) aged 8–16 years were recruited from nine Queensland communities. Their spirometry and Cormic Index data were compared to that of White children ( n = 907) aged 8–16 years from the NHANES III dataset. Results FEV 1 and FVC of First Nations children was 8% lower for children aged 8–11.9 years and 9%–10% lower for children aged 12–16 years. The Cormic Index was statistically lower in the First Nations 8–11.9 years group (median = 0.515, interquartile range [IQR]: 0.506–0.525) compared with White children (0.519, IQR: 0.511–0.527), and this difference was greater in the 12–16 years group (0.505, IQR: 0.492–0.516; 0.520, IQR: 0.510–0.529). Adjusting for age, sex, and standing height, lower Cormic Index of First Nations children accounts for 14% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7%–21%) of FEV 1 and 15% (95% CI: 8%–21%) of FVC differences in the younger group, and 26% (95% CI: 16%–37%) of FEV 1 and 31% (95% CI: 19%–42%) of FVC differences in the older group. Conclusion Ethnic differences in Cormic Index partly account for why healthy First Nations Australian children have lower spirometry values than White children. As childhood spirometry values impact adult health, other contributing factors require attention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".