Respiratory impedance and bronchodilator response in healthy Italian preschool children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define normal values for respiratory resistance (R(rs)) and reactance (X(rs)) and bronchodilator response (BDR) in a population of healthy Italian preschool children using a commercially available forced oscillation device. METHODS: R(rs) and X(rs) were measured in kindergartens in Viterbo, Italy. Regression analysis was performed taking into account height, weight, age, gender, and reference equations calculated. The coefficient of repeatability (CR) between two tests performed 15 min apart was calculated in a subset of children. BDR was assessed by repeating the measurements 15 min after the administration of 200 µg of inhaled salbutamol and calculated as an absolute change in R(rs) and X(rs) at 8 Hz, as a percent change in baseline, and as a change in Z-score calculated from the reference equations. RESULTS: Lung function was attempted in 175 healthy children and successful in 163 (81 male, median age 4.8, range 2.9-6.1 years). R(rs) and X(rs) at 6, 8, and 10 Hz were related to height but not other variables. The CR was 1.53 hPa s L(-1) for R(rs8) and 0.91 hPa s L(-1) for X(rs8). The 5th percentile for absolute R(rs8) BDR was -3.16 hPa s L(-1), whereas the 95th percentile for absolute X(rs8) BDR was 2.25 hPa s L(-1). These cut-off values corresponded to a change in the Z-score of -1.88 and 2.48, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We have established reference equations for R(rs) and X(rs) in healthy Italian preschool children using forced oscillations. We recommend a change in Z-score of -1.88 for R(rs8) and 2.48 for X(rs8) as cut-off values for a positive BDR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".