What constitutes an obstructive ventilatory impairment in a pediatric population? A study design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is no clear consensus as to what constitutes an obstructive ventilatory impairment (OVI) in pediatric populations. AIM: To determine the percentage of children/adolescents having an OVI among those addressed for spirometry after taking into account the definitions advanced by some international scholarly societies [British Columbia (BC), British thoracic-society (BTS), Canadian thoracic society (CTS), European respiratory society and American thoracic society (ERS-ATS), global initiative for asthma (GINA), Irish college of general practitioners (ICGP), national asthma council (NAC), national institute of clinical excellence (NICE), Société de pneumologie de langue française, Société pédiatrique de pneumologie et allergologie (SPLF-SP2A), and South African thoracic society (SATS)]. METHODS: This bi-centric cross-sectional study involves two medical structures in Sousse/Tunisia, and will encompass children/adolescents aged 6-18 years. A medical questionnaire will be administered, clinical and anthropometric data will be collected, and the spirometric data will be measured by two spirometers. The following six definitions of OVI will be applied: i) GINA: Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) < 80% and a FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) ≤ 0.90; ii) ICGP: FEV1/FVC < 0.70; iii) ERS-ATS or BTS or SATS or SPLF-SP2A or NAC: FEV1/FVC z-score < -1.645; iv) NICE: FEV1/FVC < 0.70 or FEV1/FVC z-score < -1.645; v) CTS: FEV1/FVC < 0.80 or a FEV1/FVC z-score < -1.645; and vi) ERS: "FEV1 z-score or FEV1/FVC z-score" < -1.645 or "FEV1 or FEV1/FVC" < 0.80. EXPECTED RESULTS: The percentage of children/adolescents having an OVI will significantly vary between the six definitions. CONCLUSION: The frequency of OVI in a pediatric population will depend on the definition chosen.
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 | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".