MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

2021 Update on the Definition of Post-bronchodilator Response for FEV1 and FVC: Clinical and Physiological Characteristics of Responders Compared to the 2005 Criteria

2025· article· en· W4410270807 on OpenAlexaff
Ioana Popescu Crainic, V. Desmarais, Bruno‐Pierre Dubé, A.-C. Maynard-Paquette

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBronchodilatorBronchodilator AgentsIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale The 2021 ATS/ERS criteria to identify a positive post-BD response was modified to an increase of FEV1 and/or FVC of at least 10% of their predicted value. This differed from the 2005 criteria that required the increase of at least 200 ml and 12% of pre-BD value. We aimed at comparing the prevalence of BD response between the two criteria and to compare the clinical and physiological characteristics of subjects according to their BD response across diagnostic criteria. Methods We retrospectively studied a random selection of patients who underwent pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry at our center between 01-2021 and 12-2022. Using patients with a positive response to BD according to the 2005 criteria as a “control“ group, we compared their clinical characteristics with those that had no response to BD according to the 2021 criteria with the goal of identifying the significant variables associated with the “loss“ of BD response using the 2021 criteria. Results300 patients were recruited [mean age 58±16 years, 139 males (33%)], of which 75 (18%) had a history of asthma and 83 (20%) were currently of inhaled corticosteroids. Overall, 89 patients (30%) subjects had a positive BD response according to the 2005 criteria (2005+) and 77 (26%) had a positive BD response according to the 2021 criteria (2021+). 16 patients (5%) had a positive BD response only according to the 2005 criteria (2005+/2021-), while 4 (1%) had the opposite result (2005-/2021+). Compared to the other patients, those with 2005+/2021- response were of similar age and sex, had similar proportions of smoking and asthma history, but had statistically significantly lower values of pre-BD FEV1 [1.56(0.48) vs 2.07(0.89) liters, p=0.03 and 55(11) vs 72(21) %predicted, p=0.002] and FVC [72(15) vs 86(19) %predicted, p=0.006]. In linear regression analysis, pre-BD FEV1 was related to the post-BD change in FEV1 when using the 2005 (beta-coefficient -0.27, p<0.001) but not the 2021 (beta-coefficient -0.07, p=0.21) criteria. Response to methacholine challenge testing and serum eosinophil were similar between the groups. Conclusion In our retrospective analysis of patients referred for pre- and post-BD testing, the main factor associated with a modification in test positivity result between the 2005 and 2021 criteria was a lower baseline FEV1 value. This supports the notion that using significance criteria based on pre-BD FEV1 may overestimate the presence of BD response in patients with more severe baseline airway obstruction and supports the change to the 2021 criteria.

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)0.008
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→