Lung function and exhaled nitric oxide in healthy unsedated African infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Population-appropriate lung function reference data are essential to accurately identify respiratory disease and measure response to interventions. There are currently no reference data in African infants. The aim was to describe normal lung function in healthy African infants. METHODS: Lung function was performed on healthy South African infants enrolled in a birth cohort study, the Drakenstein child health study. Infants were excluded if they were born preterm or had a history of neonatal respiratory distress or prior respiratory tract infection. Measurements, made during natural sleep, included the forced oscillation technique, tidal breathing, exhaled nitric oxide and multiple breath washout measures. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-three infants were tested. Acceptable and repeatable measurements were obtained in 356 (98%) and 352 (97%) infants for tidal breathing analysis and exhaled nitric oxide outcomes, 345 (95%) infants for multiple breath washout and 293 of the 333 (88%) infants for the forced oscillation technique. Age, sex and weight-for-age z score were significantly associated with lung function measures. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides reference data for unsedated infant lung function in African infants and highlights the importance of using population-specific data.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".