Fibular length and vital capacity in the multinational Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract The relative association of leg length and total height on lung volumes may be important for the clinical assessment of forced vital capacity (FVC) and for understanding critical periods in lung development. The expected size of the FVC in a healthy person generally takes account of their age, sex and size. Most commonly size has been assessed as standing height or standing height squared. Louw et al. suggested that sitting height gave a better assessment of lung function than standing height. [1] Harik-Khan et al. suggested that differences in sitting height explained the difference in lung volumes in European Americans and African Americans, and suggested that this might be explained by the thoracic height being lower relative to total height in African Americans. [2] Krause et al., in a comparison of Danish and Inuit children, also suggested that a lower height-adjusted Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) in Danish children might be explained by shorter limb lengths in the Inuit children. [3] Gunnell et al. showed an association between leg length and both one-second Forced Expiratory Volume (FEV1) and FVC in the Scottish Midspan study [4].
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".