What constitutes an obstructive ventilatory impairment in a pediatric population? A comparative study of five definitions by scholarly societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction To ascertain the frequency of obstructive ventilatory impairment (OVI) among children/adolescents referred for spirometry, using definitions provided by various international respiratory societies.Methods This cross-sectional, bi-centric study included 602 children/adolescents aged 6 to 18 years. Subjects completed a medical questionnaire, and clinical and anthropometric data were collected. Spirometric measurements were performed using two spirometers. OVI was assessed using five definitions: i) 2023-Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA): FEV1 < 80% and FEV1/FVC ≤ 0.90; ii) Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP): FEV1/FVC < 0.70; iii) European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society (ERS-ATS): FEV1/FVC z-score < −1.645; iv) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): FEV1/FVC < 0.70 or FEV1/FVC z-score < −1.645; and v) Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS): FEV1/FVC < 0.80 or a FEV1/FVC z-score < −1.645.Results The frequency of OVI varied significantly (Chi-square test < 0.001) depending on the definition applied: ICGP (7.6%), ERS-ATS or NICE (19.3%), 2023-GINA (24.9%), and CTS (27.9%). This indicated that the definitions are not equivalent in identifying OVI.Conclusion The rate of OVI in pediatric populations varies considerably based on the diagnostic criteria used. Clinicians and researchers should therefore interpret prevalence data cautiously and always specify which definition was applied.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".