Exploring the 175-year history of spirometry and the vital lessons it can teach us today
Bibliographic record
Abstract
175 years have elapsed since John Hutchinson introduced the world to his version of an apparatus that had been in development for nearly two centuries, the spirometer. Though he was not the first to build a device that sought to measure breathing and quantify the impact of disease and occupation on lung function, Hutchison coined the terms spirometer and vital capacity that are still in use today, securing his place in medical history. As Hutchinson envisioned, spirometry would become crucial to our growing knowledge of respiratory pathophysiology, from Tiffeneau and Pinelli's work on forced expiratory volumes, to Fry and Hyatt's description of the flow–volume curve. In the 20th century, standardization of spirometry further broadened its reach and prognostic potential. Today, spirometry is recognized as essential to respiratory disease diagnosis, management and research. However, controversy exists in some of its applications, uptake in primary care remains sub-optimal and there are concerns related to the way in which race is factored into interpretation. Moving forward, these failings must be addressed, and innovations like Internet-enabled portable spirometers may present novel opportunities. We must also consider the physiologic and practical limitations inherent to spirometry and further investigate complementary technologies such as respiratory oscillometry and other emerging technologies that assess lung function. Through an exploration of the storied history of spirometry, we can better contextualize its current landscape and appreciate the trends that have repeatedly arisen over time. This may help to improve our current use of spirometry and may allow us to anticipate the obstacles confronting emerging pulmonary function technologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".