Predicted Value and Interpretation of Impulse Oscillometry Lung Function Test Among Different Types of Population Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Impulse oscillometry (IOS) is an increasingly adopted method for evaluating pulmonary function due to its minimal effort requirements and sensitivity to small airway changes. While IOS offers advantages over conventional spirometry, there is substantial variability in reference values across populations, raising concerns about its diagnostic consistency. Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate and synthesize existing literature on IOS reference values in healthy populations, with a focus on identifying demographic, methodological, and regional factors influencing these standards. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published between January 2018 and January 2025. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of peer-reviewed studies reporting IOS reference values in healthy, non-smoking individuals. Data on study design, sample characteristics, measurement devices, and reported IOS parameters (e.g., R5, R20, X5, AX) were extracted and analyzed. Study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing over 6,000 participants from diverse geographic regions, including Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas. The review found consistent associations between IOS parameters and anthropometric factors, particularly height and age. However, substantial differences were noted across populations, partly due to variations in ethnicity, testing equipment, and prediction equations. Many reference values were derived from predominantly Caucasian cohorts, limiting their generalizability. Some studies proposed locally developed equations, highlighting the need for context-specific standards. Conclusion: This review demonstrates that IOS reference values are not universally applicable and are influenced by a range of demographic and methodological variables. The lack of standardized global reference equations limits the clinical utility of IOS, especially in non-Western populations. Future research should focus on developing harmonized, population-specific norms and standardizing testing protocols to enhance the clinical relevance of IOS worldwide.
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 | 0.030 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".