MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385330736 · doi:10.1002/ppul.26602

Unsupervised home spirometry is not equivalent to supervised clinic spirometry in children and young people with cystic fibrosis: Results from the CLIMB‐CF study

2023· article· en· W4385330736 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Edmondson, Nicole Westrupp, Christopher Short, Paul Seddon, Catherine Olden, Colin Wallis, Malcolm Brodlie, Francis Baxter, Jonathan McCormick, Susan MacFarlane, Richard Brooker, Margaret Connon, Salim N.S. Ghayyda, L. Blaikie, Rebecca Thursfield, Lynsey Brown, April Price, Erin Fleischer, Daniel Hughes, Christine Donnelly, Mark Rosenthal, J. Wallenburg, K. Brownlee, Eric W.F.W. Alton, Andrew Bush, Jane C. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Pulmonology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsCystic Fibrosis CanadaIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersCystic Fibrosis TrustNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCystic Fibrosis Canada
KeywordsMedicineSpirometrySpirometerInterquartile rangePhysical therapyPediatricsInternal medicineAsthmaExhaled nitric oxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Handheld spirometry allows monitoring of lung function at home, of particular importance during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Pediatric studies are unclear on whether values are interchangeable with traditional, clinic‐based spirometry. We aimed to assess differences between contemporaneous, home (unsupervised) and clinic (supervised) spirometry and the variability of the former. The accuracy of the commercially available spirometer used in the study was also tested. Methods Data from participants in the Clinical Monitoring and Biomarkers to stratify severity and predict outcomes in children with cystic fibrosisc (CLIMB‐CF) Study aged ≥ 6 years who had paired (±1 day) clinic and home forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) readings were analyzed. Variability during clinical stability over 6‐months was assessed. Four devices from Vitalograph were tested using 1 and 3 L calibration syringes. Results Sixty‐seven participants (median [interquartile range] age 10.7 [7.6−13.9] years) provided home and clinic FEV1 data pairs. The mean (SD) FEV1% bias was 6.5% [±8.2%]) with wide limits of agreement (−9.6% to +22.7%); 76.2% of participants recorded lower results at home. Coefficient of variation of home FEV1% during stable periods was 9.9%. Data from the testing of the handheld device used in CLIMB‐CF showed a potential underread. Conclusion In children and adolescents, home spirometry using hand‐held equipment cannot be used interchangeably with clinic spirometry. Home spirometry is moderately variable during clinical stability. New handheld devices underread, particularly at lower volumes of potential clinical significance for smaller patients; this suggests that supervision does not account fully for the discrepancy. Opportunities should be taken to obtain dual device measurements in clinic, so that trend data from home can be utilized more accurately.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric PulmonologySame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207