Impulse oscillometry in the evaluation of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in adults: A systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB) is a chronic respiratory disease marked by irreversible airway dilation, persistent inflammation, and recurrent infections. Impulse oscillometry (IOS) assesses lung function non-invasively, particularly in patients unable to perform spirometry, but its role in NCFB remains underexplored. RESEARCH QUESTION: This systematic review examined the role of IOS in adults with NCFB, focusing on diagnostic value, correlation with disease severity, airway reversibility prediction, and associations with exacerbations, hospitalisations, and mortality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic literature search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed in January 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies assessed IOS in adult NCFB and reported associations with clinical, radiological, or functional outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. RESULTS: Seven studies were included. IOS was more sensitive than spirometry in detecting small-airway dysfunction, particularly in early disease. Several IOS parameters correlated with radiological and severity scores, though findings were heterogeneous. Associations with exacerbations and hospitalisations were inconsistent. One study suggested R5-R20 may predict bronchodilator response. IOS parameters appeared stable across disease stages. CONCLUSION: IOS may complement conventional assessment of NCFB, especially for small-airway evaluation, but standardisation and longitudinal research remain necessary.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".