Respiratory Muscle Strength in Healthy Children Aged 6 Years and Under: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Study Question Measurement of respiratory muscle strength is important in the assessment and management of neuromuscular diseases. Reference data are essential for interpretation of clinical findings, but are lacking in infants and young children. This study aimed to provide reference data for maximum inspiratory (PImax) and maximum expiratory (PEmax) pressures in children aged 6 years and under. Materials and Methods Healthy, term‐born children were eligible for inclusion. Age, height, weight and BMI were recorded, and height/weight/BMI‐for‐age percentiles calculated. PImax and PEmax were measured using a tight‐fitting face mask attached to a pressure transducer during maximal inspiratory and expiratory efforts respectively, induced via crying in younger participants and volitionally in older children. The greatest pressure was reported from three values within 20% of one another. Repeat measurements were obtained within a week where possible. Results Sixty‐nine children aged 0.08–6.85 years were recruited, from whom technically‐acceptable PImax and PEmax data were obtained in 45 and 38 cases respectively. PImax was significantly and inversely related to age (Spearman's rho −0.339, p = 0.046); PEmax was not related to any anthropometric characteristics. Neither PImax or PEmax differed between male and female participants. Predicted PImax was 120 + (−3.89xage); mean (SD) PEmax was 80.3 (21.7) cmH 2 O. Repeatability coefficient was 17.2 cmH 2 O for PImax and 26.3 cmH 2 O for PEmax (based on eleven and nine children respectively). Answer to the Study Question This study provides the first contiguous reference range from infancy through to school age. Reference data are provided for PImax and PEmax along with information on repeatability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".