MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intrabreath Oscillometry (IBO) vs. Spectral Oscillometry (SO) in Detecting Respiratory Disease in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT)

2025· article· en· W4410273803 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maureen B. Josephson, H. Boas, Jason L. Freedman, Lisa R. Young, Samuel Goldfarb, Paul D. Robinson, C. Towe, Jonathan M. Gaffin, W. Wong, Jamin Koo, Adam Lane, Stella M. Davies, J. Mc Donough, Julian L. Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Body Area Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationCardiologyInternal medicineTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: SO is a tidal breathing test which can detect respiratory impairment following HSCT. IBO can measure differences in respiratory system stiffness that occur between end expiration and end inspiration and may be more sensitive than SO in detecting obstructive or restrictive disease in the transplant population. We have previously reported that baseline SO findings are abnormal in patients preparing to undergo HSCT. However, little is known about IBO findings in this population. Methods: The TRANSPIRE study (NCT04098445) is a multi-center prospective observational cohort study of lung injury after HSCT in children. We performed oscillometry (Tremoflo© C100, Thorasys, Montreal, CA) at baseline in a cohort of 148 subjects, ages 4-21, at 4 participating centers. Of subjects enrolled so far, 68 had oscillometry pre-HSCT. Following ERS 2020 Guidelines, oscillometry was measured during 3-7 30-second trials using commercial equipment (Tremoflo, Thorasys Ltd, 5-37Hz) targeting a coefficient of variation of <15% in respiratory system resistance at 5HZ (R5). SO variables included X5, X11, AX and Fres. IBO variables included reactance at end expiration (Xee), reactance at end inspiration (Xei) at 5Hz, and their difference both corrected and uncorrected for tidal volume. Linear regression analysis was used to compare Transpire subjects to a cohort of 80 normal control patients studied at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Results: There were significant differences between subjects and controls in X5, X11, AX and Fres measured by SO. However no significant differences in IBO were seen between TRANSPIRE and control subjects in (X5ee-X5ei) or (X5ee-X5ei)/VT (Table). Conclusions: We found no differences in IBO parameters in control vs TRANSPIRE subjects. Prior studies have reported that IBO Xee is greater (more negative) than Xei in obstructive disease, whereas Xee-Xei is positive in restrictive disease such as pulmonary fibrosis. Thus, discerning group differences between HSCT and control subjects may be more difficult. Our initial results suggest that baseline intrabreath oscillometry testing does not add discriminatory value beyond spectral oscillometry in distinguishing between normal and HSCT subjects as a group. Future studies should assess whether IBO has promise in detecting obstructive or restrictive disease in individual patients over time following HSCT.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 MedicineSame topicWireless Body Area NetworksFrench-language works237,207