Are the Reference Equations for Maximal Respiratory Pressure in Children Adequately Predicting Their Value?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to investigate the agreement between the measured and estimated respiratory muscle strength in children and adolescents. We hypothesized that when using reference muscle strength equation consistent with the characteristics of the sample population, there would not be differences between the measured and predicted values. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. One hundred seventy-nine participants were healthy volunteers between 6 and 18 years of age. Those who had lung disease in the previous 4 weeks, abnormalities in the pulmonary function test, chronic cardiopulmonary disease, prematurity or inadequacy when performing the tests were excluded. Maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP and MEP) were assessed according to recommendations. The measured MIP and MEP values were compared to predicted values of the six most frequently cited prediction equations for children and adolescents. Results: Mean age was 12.3 +/- 3.7 years and 54% were male. The mean MIP was 87.5 +/- 27.1 cm H 2 O and MEP was 90.8 +/- 23.6 cm H 2 O. Three predicted MIP equations had similar results to the measured values (P > 0.05). For MEP, only one equation had similar values (P = 0.12). Instead, there was weak to moderate agreement of all equations. At Bland-Altman plots, the mean bias was greater than 6 cm H 2 O for all equations, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was about 30 cm H 2 O. Conclusion: There is significant variability between measured and predicted MIP and MEP values. Some equations showed similarity to measured values; however, the reliability was poor. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2023;12(2):37-44 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/ijcp517
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".