MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412378846 · doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002355

Concordance between FVC and FEV <sub>6</sub> for identifying chronic airflow obstruction and spirometric restriction in the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) study

2025· article· en· W4412378846 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Knox‐Brown, James E. Potts, Frits M.E. Franssen, Rune Nielsen, Meriam Denguezli, Anders Ørskov Rotevatn, Sanjay Juvekar, Hamid Hacene Cherkaski, Michael Studnicka, Karl Sylvester, Kevin Mortimer, Eric Bateman, Christer Janson, Andreï Malinovschi, Terence Seemungal, Parvaiz A Koul, David M. Mannino, P A Mahesh, Rain Jögi, Filip Mejza, Mohammed Al Ghobain, Stefanni Nonna M Paraguas, Tobias Welte, Emiel F.�M. Wouters, Þórarinn Gíslason, Imed Harrabi, Hermínia Brites Dias, Daniel Obaseki, Ali Kocabaş, Cristina Bárbara, João Lourenço Cardoso, Dhiraj Agarwal, Asaad Ahmed Nafees, Fátima Rodrigues, Vanessa García-Larsen, Gregory E. Erhabor, Li‐Cher Loh, André F.S. Amaral

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Respiratory Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMedical Research CouncilParacelsus Medizinische PrivatuniversitätWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineSpirometryVital capacityInternal medicineObstructive lung diseaseBronchodilatorCardiologyCohortAsthmaCOPDLungLung functionDiffusing capacity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction We investigated whether the forced expiratory volume in 6 s (FEV 6 ) can be used as a surrogate for the forced vital capacity (FVC). Methods The Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease is a multinational cohort study. At baseline, data were collected from adults, aged 40 years or older, from 41 sites across 34 countries. Participants from 18 sites were followed-up after a median of 8.3 years. Participants who completed the study core questionnaire and had acceptable post-bronchodilator spirometry were included. We performed receiver operating characteristic analyses to measure the ability of FEV 1 /FEV 6 less than the lower limit of normal (LLN) to correctly classify FEV 1 /FVC less than the LLN, and FEV 6 less than the LLN to correctly classify FVC less than the LLN. We used multilevel regression analyses to assess the association of discordant measurements with respiratory symptoms, quality of life and lung function decline. Results At baseline, 28 604 participants were included. 53% were female (15 060). 10% (2876) had chronic airflow obstruction for FEV 1 /FVC, compared with 9% (2704) for FEV 1 /FEV 6 . 37% (10 637) had spirometric restriction for FVC, compared with 35% (9978) for FEV 6 . The FEV 1 /FEV 6 had excellent accuracy in identifying FEV 1 /FVC less than the LLN (area under the curve (AUC): 0.90, 95% CI, 0.89 to 0.91, κ coefficient 0.82). The FEV 6 also had excellent agreement in identifying FVC less than the LLN (AUC: 0.95, 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.95, κ coefficient 0.90). Discordant reductions in FEV 1 /FEV 6 (1%, 345) and FEV 6 (1%, 309) were associated with greater odds of having respiratory symptoms and a lower physical quality of life. 3870 participants were followed up. Those with discordant reductions in FEV 1 /FEV 6 and FEV 6 were more likely to have chronic airflow obstruction and spirometric restriction at follow-up. Conclusions There is strong agreement between the FVC and FEV 6 in the identification of chronic airflow obstruction and spirometric restriction.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 venueBMJ Open Respiratory ResearchSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207