Differences in pulmonary function measured by oscillometry between horses with mild–moderate equine asthma and healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The diagnosis of mild–moderate equine asthma (MEA) can be confirmed by airway endoscopy, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALf) cytology, and lung function evaluation by indirect pleural pressure measurement. Oscillometry is a promising pulmonary function test method, but its ability to detect subclinical airway obstruction has been questioned. Objective s To evaluate the differences in lung function measured by oscillometry between healthy and MEA‐affected horses. Study design Prospective case–control clinical study. Methods Thirty‐seven horses were divided into healthy and MEA groups, based on history and clinical score; the diagnosis of MEA was confirmed by airway endoscopy and BALf cytology. Horses underwent oscillometry at frequencies ranging from 2 to 6 Hz. Obtained parameters included whole‐breath, inspiratory, expiratory, and the difference between inspiratory and expiratory resistance (Rrs) and reactance (Xrs). Differences between oscillometry parameters at different frequencies were evaluated within and between groups by repeated‐measures two‐way ANOVA and post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction. Frequency dependence was compared between groups by t test. For significant parameters, a receiver operating characteristics curve was designed, cut‐off values were identified and their sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results No significant differences in Xrs and Rrs were observed between groups. The frequency dependence of whole‐breath and inspiratory Xrs significantly differed between healthy (respectively, −0.03 ± 0.02 and −0.05 ± 0.02 cmH 2 O/L/s) and MEA (−0.1 ± 0.03 and −0.2 ± 0.02 cmH 2 O/L/s) groups ( p < 0.05 and p < 0.01). For inspiratory Xrs frequency dependence, a cut‐off value of −0.06 cmH 2 O/L/s was identified, with 86.4% (95% CI: 66.7%–95.3%) sensitivity and 66.7% (95% CI: 41.7%–84.8%) specificity. Main limitations Sample size, no BALf cytology in some healthy horses. Conclusions Oscillometry can represent a useful non‐invasive tool for the diagnosis of MEA. Specifically, the evaluation of the frequency dependence of Xrs may be of special interest.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".