New spirometry recommendations from the Brazilian Thoracic Association – 2024 update
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The latest pulmonary function guideline from the Brazilian Thoracic Association was published in 2002, since which there have been updates to international guidelines (mainly those from the European Respiratory Society and the American Thoracic Society), as well as new national and international publications on various aspects of the performance, interpretation, and clinical implications of spirometry. Despite those updates, a careful analysis of what applies to the reality in Brazil is essential, because there have been studies that evaluated individuals who are representative of our population and who could show responses different from those of individuals in other regions of the world. This document is the result of the work of a group of specialists in pulmonary function who evaluated relevant scientific articles that could be applicable to the population of Brazil. After the discussions, new spirometry guidelines were drawn up, covering various aspects such as its technical parameters and performance; its indications and contraindications; its interpretation; concepts of normality and their related variability; reference values; classification of functional severity; and response to an inhaled bronchodilator. Finally, the guidelines emphasize the need to always interpret spirometry results in the context of the clinical condition of the patient and of the pretest probability.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 it