A comparison of pulmonary capillary blood volume and membrane diffusing capacity assessed <i>via</i> two pulmonary diffusing capacity approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The combined measurement of pulmonary diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide ( D LCO ) and nitric oxide ( D LNO ) permits the interrogation of pulmonary capillary blood volume ( V c ) and membrane diffusing capacity ( D m ) from a single-breath hold, providing a less onerous means of evaluating pulmonary microvascular function than the classic Roughton–Forster multiple fractions of inspired oxygen approach (m F iO 2 – D LCO ). Despite its growing utility, the concordance between D LCO , V c and D m derived from the D LCO / D LNO and m F iO 2 – D LCO approaches remains unclear. Thus, we sought to evaluate the agreement between D LCO , V c and D m measured via the single-breath D LCO / D LNO and the m F iO 2 – D LCO approaches at baseline as well as during exercise and postural stress. We hypothesised that there would be strong agreement between the two approaches for D LCO and V c . Methods 16 healthy young adults (5 female; age: 24±4 years) completed two experimental visits: 1) cycling at 30% and 60% of peak oxygen consumption ( V ′ O 2 peak ), and 2) postural stress (supine-to-60°head-up tilt (HUT)). D LCO , V c and D m were measured via the combined D LCO / D LNO (Hypair) and m F IO 2 – D LCO approaches (randomised) at each stage. Results During baseline and exercise, D LCO demonstrated excellent agreement between measurement approaches (baseline intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.92 (95% CI 0.79–0.97); 30% V ′ O 2 peak ICC 0.89 (95% CI 0.71–0.96); 60% V ′ O 2 peak ICC 0.94 (95% CI 0.93–0.98), all p<0.001). V c exhibited moderate-to-very good agreement (baseline ICC 0.61 (95% CI 0.17–0.85); 30% V ′ O 2 peak ICC 0.77 (95% CI 0.46–0.91); 60% V ′ O 2 peak ICC 0.51 (95% CI 0.01–0.81), all p≤0.022), while D m had poor-to-moderate agreement (baseline ICC 0.19 (95% CI −0.32–0.62), p=0.228; 30% V ′ O 2 peak ICC 0.43 (95% CI −0.08–0.77), p=0.046; 60% V ′ O 2 peak ICC 0.51 (95% CI −0.01–0.82), p=0.026). Similar results were observed during postural stress. Conclusion These data indicate that D LCO and V c , but not D m , derived from the D LCO / D LNO and m F IO 2 – D LCO approach are comparable.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".