Clinical significance and applications of oscillometry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, "Technical standards for respiratory oscillometry" was published, which reviewed the physiological basis of oscillometric measures and detailed the technical factors related to equipment and test performance, quality assurance and reporting of results. Here we present a review of the clinical significance and applications of oscillometry. We briefly review the physiological principles of oscillometry and the basics of oscillometry interpretation, and then describe what is currently known about oscillometry in its role as a sensitive measure of airway resistance, bronchodilator responsiveness and bronchial challenge testing, and response to medical therapy, particularly in asthma and COPD. The technique may have unique advantages in situations where spirometry and other lung function tests are not suitable, such as in infants, neuromuscular disease, sleep apnoea and critical care. Other potential applications include detection of bronchiolitis obliterans, vocal cord dysfunction and the effects of environmental exposures. However, despite great promise as a useful clinical tool, we identify a number of areas in which more evidence of clinical utility is needed before oscillometry becomes routinely used for diagnosing or monitoring respiratory disease.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it