The multi‐ethnic global lung initiative 2012 (GLI-2012) norms reflect contemporary adult's Algerian spirometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The validation of the multi-ethnic GLI-2012 spirometric norms has been debated in several countries. However, its applicability in Algeria has not been verified.To ascertain how well the GLI-2012 norms fit contemporary adult Algerian spirometric data.This was a cross-sectional study of a convenience sample of 300 healthy non-smoker adults (50% men, age range: 18-85 years) recruited from the Algiers region general population. All participants underwent a clinical examination and a plethysmography measurement. Z-scores for some spirometric data [FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC and forced expiratory flow at 25-75% of FVC (FEF25-75%)] were calculated. If the average Z-score deviated by "< ± 0.5" from the overall mean, the GLI-2012 norms would be considered as reflective of contemporary Algerian spirometry.The means±SDs of age, height, weight, FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC and FEF25-75% of the participants were, respectively, 48±17 years, 1.65±0.10 m, 73±14 kg, 4.04±1.04 L, 3.18±0.82 L, 0.79±0.05 and 4.09±1.09 L/s. Almost the quarter of participants were obese. The total sample means±SDs Z-scores were 0.22±0.87 for FVC, 0.04±0.88 for FEV1, -0.34±0.67 for FEV1/FVC and 0.93±0.79 for FEF25-75%. For men and women, only the means±SDs of the FEF25-75% Z-scores exceeded the threshold of "± 0.5", respectively, 1.13±0.77 and 0.73±0.76.Results of the present study, performed in an Algerian population of healthy non-smoking adults, supported the applicability of the GLI-2012 norms to interpret FEV1, FVC and FEV1/FVC but not the FEF25-75%.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".