Reference Values of Pulmonary Function Tests for Canadian Caucasians
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multicentre, cross-sectional study was carried out in six centres across Canada to establish a national standard for pulmonary function tests using healthy, lifetime nonsmokers, with each centre aiming to test 10 men and 10 women from each decade from 20 to 80 years of age. Data from each centre were used to derive prediction equations for each centre, and pooled data from all centres (total: 327 women and 300 men) were used to derive Canadian predicted equations. The predictive models were compared with three widely used published models for selected tests. It was found that, in general, the equations modelled for each centre could be replaced by the models obtained when pooling all data (Canadian model). Comparisons with the published references showed good agreement and similar slopes for most tests. The results suggest that pulmonary function test results obtained from different centres in Canada were comparable and that standards currently used remain valid for Canadian Caucasians.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it