MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383198767 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2023.1164646

Comparison of electrical impedance tomography and spirometry-based measures of airflow in healthy adult horses

2023· article· en· W4383198767 on OpenAlexaff
David Byrne, Ben Keeshan, Giselle Hosgood, Andy Adler, Martina Mosing

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersMurdoch University
KeywordsSpirometryMedicineElectrical impedance tomographyExpirationSpirometerHyperpneaNuclear medicineTidal volumeLimits of agreementCardiologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineRespiratory systemTomographyAsthmaRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a non-invasive diagnostic tool for evaluating lung function. The objective of this study was to compare respiratory flow variables calculated from thoracic EIT measurements with corresponding spirometry variables. Ten healthy research horses were sedated and instrumented with spirometry via facemask and a single-plane EIT electrode belt around the thorax. Horses were exposed to sequentially increasing volumes of apparatus dead space between 1,000 and 8,500 mL, in 5–7 steps, to induce carbon dioxide rebreathing, until clinical hyperpnea or a tidal volume of 150% baseline was reached. A 2-min stabilization period followed by 2 minutes of data collection occurred at each timepoint. Peak inspiratory and expiratory flow, inspiratory and expiratory time, and expiratory nadir flow, defined as the lowest expiratory flow between the deceleration of flow of the first passive phase of expiration and the acceleration of flow of the second active phase of expiration were evaluated with EIT and spirometry. Breathing pattern was assessed based on the total impedance curve. Bland-Altman analysis was used to evaluate the agreement where perfect agreement was indicated by a ratio of EIT:spirometry of 1.0. The mean ratio (bias; expressed as a percentage difference from perfect agreement) and the 95% confidence interval of the bias are reported. There was good agreement between EIT-derived and spirometry-derived peak inspiratory [−15% (−46–32)] and expiratory [10% (−32–20)] flows and inspiratory [−6% (−25–18)] and expiratory [5% (−9–20)] times. Agreement for nadir flows was poor [−22% (−87–369)]. Sedated horses intermittently exhibited Cheyne-Stokes variant respiration, and a breath pattern with incomplete expiration in between breaths ( crown-like breaths). Electrical impedance tomography can quantify airflow changes over increasing tidal volumes and changing breathing pattern when compared with spirometry in standing sedated horses.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207