Oscillometry with or without spirometry for methacholine testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Oscillometry is proposed either as a complementary or an alternative technique to spirometry for methacholine testing. Yet, before being prescribed indiscriminately in conjunction with, or instead of, spirometry, the extent by which the oscillometric readouts are influenced by spirometry (i.e., the periodic forceful breathing maneuvers required to track lung function during the methacholine challenge) will need to be determined. Methods: Sixteen very mild to mild asthmatics underwent two methacholine challenges on separate visits. On visit 1, the response was tracked by both oscillometry and spirometry, and the challenge was stopped at the provocative concentration causing a decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s of at least 20%. The same concentration regimen was used on visit 2, but the response was tracked by oscillometry only. The oscillometric response was monitored by measuring the changes in respiratory system resistance at 5 Hz (Rrs5) and 19 Hz (Rrs19), Rrs5 minus Rrs19 (Rrs5-19), reactance at 5 Hz (Xrs5), resonant frequency (Fres), and reactance area (Ax). Results: Except for Rrs19, the changes in all oscillometric readouts were greater in the challenge without spirometry (p≤0.02). The maximal change in Xrs5, for example, was on average 75.8% greater in the challenge without spirometry than in the challenge with spirometry (p=0.025). The number of doubling-concentrations of methacholine that was needed to reach an equivalent change in Xrs5 was also lower without concomitant spirometry (p=0.0078). Conclusion: The forceful breathing maneuvers that are required in spirometry to monitor the response to methacholine decrease the oscillometric response.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.008 |
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".