Controlled<i>versus</i>free breathing for multiple-breath nitrogen washout in asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple-breath nitrogen washout (MBNW) is an emerging clinical test for assessing ventilation heterogeneity [1], often characteristically increased in asthma. MBNW indices both indicate and predict response to asthma treatment [2–4], and therefore may be an important tool for guiding treatment decisions [2]. Two established breathing protocols are currently in use: 1-L tidal volume ( V T) controlled breathing (CB) [5, 6] and unrestricted free breathing (FB) [7]. The CB protocol requires targeted V T and respiratory rate, whereas the FB protocol encourages relaxed tidal breathing, making it more suitable for paediatrics [8]. Two recently published studies in healthy adults showed that indices of conductive and acinar ventilation heterogeneity ( S cond and S acin, respectively) and, to a lesser extent, lung clearance index (LCI), were not comparable between breathing protocols [9, 10]. Importantly, differences between the protocols were dependent on the magnitude of ventilation heterogeneity. Thus, the assumption is that these effects would be amplified in disease, where ventilation heterogeneity is greater and clinical utility is most relevant. However, this has not been confirmed to date. We hypothesised that people with asthma, where ventilation heterogeneity is greater, would exhibit greater differences between the two protocols than the differences seen in healthy adults. The lack of comparability in indices of ventilation heterogeneity between free- and controlled-breathing MBNW protocols is confirmed in asthma <https://bit.ly/3lmri4A>
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".