Reference values for respiratory sinusoidal oscillometry in children aged 3 to 17 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New oscillometry devices allowing quantification of respiratory function using tidal breathing are commercially available, but reference equations are lacking for the multiethnic Canadian pediatric population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study of healthy children carefully selected for absence of asthma, atopy, tobacco smoke, obesity, prematurity, and recent respiratory infection. Triplicate measures were obtained of respiratory system resistance (Rrs) and reactance (Xrs), area under the reactance curve (AX) and resonant frequency (Fres) on four signals, whose testing order was randomized: two signals on the Resmon Pro Full (8 Hz and 5-11-19 Hz) and two signals on the tremoflo C-100 (5-37 Hz and 7-41 Hz). Feasibility was defined as the ability to obtain valid reproducible results. Prediction equations and 95% confidence intervals were derived for whole- and within-breath Rrs and Xrs and for AX and Fres, using linear regression or Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale and Shape. RESULTS: Of 306 children randomized, valid and reproducible results on ≥1 signal were obtained in 299 (98%) multiethnic (69% Caucasians: 8% Black: 23% Others) children aged 3-17 years, 91-189 cm tall. Standing height was the strongest predictor with no significant effect of sex, age, body mass index or ethnicity. Significant within-patient differences were observed between Resmon Pro and tremoflo C-100 measurements, justifying the derivation of device-specific reference equations. CONCLUSION: Valid reproducible oscillometry measurements are highly feasible in children aged 3 years and older. Device-specific reference equations, valid for our multiethnic population, are derived.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".