MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

FEV1Q Minimal Clinical Important Difference in the COPDGene Study

2025· article· en· W4410271352 on OpenAlexaff
Elisa Schiavi, Francesca Cefaloni, Min Hyung Ryu, L. Martini, Akhila Balasubramanian, Matteo Bonini, Craig P. Hersh

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale The European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) suggested the use of FEV1Q, defined as the ratio between the raw measurement and the sex-specific first percentile (0.5L for males and 0.4L for females) of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), as a possible endpoint to express natural changes in lung function over time in adults. However, only limited evidence supports this proposal. Methods In the COPDGene Study, we aimed to evaluate the role of FEV1Q in assessing lung function changes from baseline (Phase 1) to the five year visit (Phase 2). Our goal was now to define the minimal clinical important differences (MCIDs) for FEV1Q that correlated with clinically meaningful end-points in all subjects and in different subgroups (Pre-COPD, COPD GOLD 1-4, COPD GOLD 2-4, and PRISm).For this purpose, we combined two different approaches, the average change (AC) and the change difference (CD) methods, to anchor variations in FEV1Q to multiple well-established clinical outcome measures, including St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC), and six-minute walk test (6MWT) distance. The primary analysis was performed on annualized FEV1Q changes, testing the hypothesis that differences greater than the MCID could predict all-cause mortality over a five-year interval (Phase 1-2). Results Phase 2 data was available for 5580 participants. In this group, FEV1Q MCIDs were relatively consistent among different subgroups, with the notable exception of PRISm, and converged towards 0.06 units/year, which correspond to a 24 and a 30mL/year decline in FEV1 in females and males, respectively. In Cox Proportional Hazard models adjusted for age, race, height, BMI, smoking status, and baseline FEV1, the MCIDs discriminated survival in the whole cohort (HR 1.53, 95%CI 1.35-1.73), in subgroups with COPD GOLD 1-4 (HR 1.64, 95%CI 1.39-1.93), COPD GOLD 2-4 (HR 1.62, 95%CI 1.37-1.92) and PRISm (HR 1.51, 95%CI 1.06-2.16), with model concordance (from 0 to 1) ranging from 0.67 to 0.72. Conclusions We defined an anchor-based MCID for FEV1Q decline of 0.06 units/year, corresponding to 24mL/year in women and 30mL/year in men. This extent of variation provided discrimination for all-cause mortality at five years. To our knowledge, no study has explored the prospective value of FEV1Q decline over time. Further investigations will be anyway needed to confirm our findings in different cohorts.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→