Correlation of respiratory oscillometry with CT image analysis in a prospective cohort of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Markers of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) severity are based on measurements of forced vital capacity (FVC), diffusing capacity (DLCO) and CT. The pulmonary vessel volume (PVV) is a novel quantitative and independent prognostic structural indicator derived from automated CT analysis. The current prospective cross-sectional study investigated whether respiratory oscillometry provides complementary data to pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and is correlated with PVV. Methods From September 2019 to March 2020, we enrolled 89 patients with IPF diagnosed according to international guidelines. We performed standard spectral (5–37 Hz) and novel intrabreath tracking (10 Hz) oscillometry followed by PFTs. Patients were characterised with the gender-age-physiology (GAP) score. CT images within 6 months of oscillometry were analysed in a subgroup (26 patients) using automated lung texture analysis. Correlations between PFTs, oscillometry and imaging variables were investigated using different regression models. Findings The cohort (29F/60M; age=71.7±7.8 years) had mild IPF (%FVC=70±17, %DLCO=62±17). Spectral oscillometry revealed normal respiratory resistance, low reactance, especially during inspiration at 5 Hz (X5in), elevated reactance area and resonance frequency. Intrabreath oscillometry identified markedly low reactance at end-inspiration (XeI). XeI and X5in strongly correlated with FVC (r 2 =0.499 and 0.435) while XeI was highly (p=0.004) and uniquely correlated with the GAP score. XeI and PVV exhibited the strongest structural-functional relationship (r 2 =0.690), which remained significant after adjusting for %FVC, %DLCO and GAP score. Interpretation XeI is an independent marker of IPF severity that offers additional information to standard PFTs. The data provide a cogent rationale for adding oscillometry in IPF assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".