Late Breaking Abstract - Validation of the 2021 GLI reference equations for static lung volumes in a general European cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Reference equations (RefEq) are necessary to assess whether obtained values for lung volumes are in the range of normal and are required in the diagnosis of restrictive impairment (TLC Methods: 4367 healthy, asymptomatic never-smokers (56% female, aged 6-80 yrs) from the single-centered Austrian LEAD study with body box testing (JAEGER; BT-MasterScopeBody©) were analysed. Mean z-scores were calculated by using the 2021 GLI and the 1993 ECSC (>18 yrs) and 1977 Zapletal RefEq (<18 yrs). Distribution of z-scores and the %< lower limit of normal (LLN) and > upper limit of normal (ULN) were analysed. Results: The 2021 GLI RefEq showed a better fit for static lung volumes compared to the previous RefEq in terms of distribution of the expected 5% ULN in a healthy population (Table1). However, TLC Conclusion: The 2021 GLI RefEq showed better fit for static lung volumes compared to previous RefEq in a European population. However, 2021 GLI may underestimate the prevalence of restrictive impairment.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".