Restricted spirometry in the Burden of Lung Disease Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of restrictive lung disease has classically required the measure of total lung capacity to document 'true' restriction, which has limited its detection in large population-based studies. METHODS: We used spirometric data to classify people with restricted spirometry (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)]/forced vital capacity ≥ 0.70 and FEV(1) < 80% predicted) in the Burden of Lung Disease (BOLD) Study and determined the relation between this finding and demographic factors and the presence of chronic diseases, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Overall, we found that 11.7% of men (546/4664) and 16.4% of women (836/5098) had restricted spirometry. Prevalence varied widely by site, from a low of 4.2% among males in Sydney, Australia, to a high of 48.7% among females in Manila, The Philippines. Compared to people with normal lung function, those with restricted spirometry had a higher prevalence of diabetes (12.2% vs. 4.6%), heart disease (15.0% vs. 7.7%) and hypertension (38.8% vs. 22.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Restricted spirometry is a common finding in population studies. Additional research is needed to better define and describe the mechanisms that lead to restricted spirometry and potential interventions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".