MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416926577 · doi:10.2196/preprints.87770

Deep Learning Estimation of Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second-to-Forced Vital Capacity Ratio and Obstructive Lung Disease Classification From Chest Radiographs With Fairness Assessment: Retrospective Cohort Study (Preprint)

2025· article· W4416926577 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eptehal Nashnoush, Helen D’Couto, Benjamin Fine, Leo Anthony Celi, Mohamed Abdalla

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpirometryRetrospective cohort studyCohortRadiographyChest radiographObstructive lung diseaseLung volumesLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Spirometry is the standard physiological test defining airflow obstruction, the key criterion for diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is underused in high-income settings and often unavailable in low- and middle-income countries, causing underdetection. Deep learning analysis of chest radiographs, which are widely available where spirometry is not, may complement spirometric screening, but its use in North American cohorts and across demographic strata has not been examined. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to train a deep learning model to estimate the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio from chest radiographs and classify airflow obstruction (FEV₁/FVC <0.70), evaluate it on a held-out test set, and audit subgroup performance across age, sex, and surname-inferred ethnicity. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 3537 adults who underwent prebronchodilator spirometry and chest radiography within 30 days at a large hospital network in Ontario, Canada, between October 2020 and May 2023. A ConvNeXt-Base architecture pretrained on ImageNet was trained to predict FEV₁/FVC, with predictions classified using a 0.70 cutoff for binary airflow limitation. At the patient level, the cohort was divided into training (n=2263), validation (n=566), and held-out test (n=708 patients; 3273 examinations) sets. Performance was assessed using regression (mean absolute error [MAE], root mean squared error [RMSE], and Pearson r), classification (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value [PPV and NPV], and likelihood ratios [LR+ and LR−]), calibration, and decision curve metrics, with 95% CIs from patient-level cluster bootstrap (1000 resamples). Subgroup analyses used Holm correction and two 1-sided tests. RESULTS In the held-out test cohort, MAE was 0.08 (95% CI 0.07-0.09) and RMSE was 0.10 (95% CI 0.10-0.11). For binary obstruction, sensitivity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.65-0.74), specificity 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.76), PPV 0.71 (95% CI 0.65-0.76), NPV 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.76), LR+ 2.46 (95% CI 2.11-2.88), and LR− 0.42 (95% CI 0.36-0.49). Patient-level estimates were similar (sensitivity 0.69, 95% CI 0.66-0.72; specificity 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.78). Calibration was excellent for regression (slope=0.97; intercept=0.015) and mildly miscalibrated for the binary task (slope=1.41; intercept=0.04; Brier=0.195). Decision curve analysis showed net benefit at threshold probabilities of approximately 0.27 to 0.86. Sensitivity was meaningfully reduced in Asian patients (0.43, 95% CI 0.29-0.56) compared with White patients (0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.79; absolute difference −0.32; Holm P<.001), with accompanying differences in specificity, PPV, and LR−, and was lower in younger age groups, peaking at 65-74 years. CONCLUSIONS A deep learning model trained on routine chest radiographs estimated FEV₁/FVC and identified airflow limitation in a North American cohort, with moderate discrimination, well-calibrated regression predictions, and positive net benefit. Performance was not uniform across demographic strata, with reduced sensitivity in Asian patients and younger age groups. Multisite external validation and subgroup-specific verification are important next steps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→