Reference equations for oscillometry and their differences among populations: a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory oscillometry is gaining global attention over traditional pulmonary function tests for its sensitivity in detecting small airway obstructions. However, its use in clinical settings as a diagnostic tool is limited because oscillometry lacks globally accepted reference values. In this scoping review, we systematically assessed the differences between selected oscillometric reference equations with the hypothesis that significant heterogeneity existed between them. We searched bibliographic databases, registries and references for studies that developed equations for healthy adult populations according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A widely used Caucasian model was used as the standard reference and compared against other models using Bland-Altman and Lin's concordance correlational analyses. We screened 1202 titles and abstracts, and after a full-text review of 67 studies, we included 10 in our analyses. Of these, three models had a low-to-moderate agreement with the reference model, particularly those developed from non-Caucasian populations. Although the other six models had a moderate-to-high agreement with the standard model, there were still significant sex-specific variations. This is the first systematic analysis of the heterogeneity between oscillometric reference models and warrants the validation of appropriate equations in clinical applications of oscillometry to avoid diagnostic errors.
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 | 0.063 | 0.260 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".