ArticleERJ open research2023
Artificial intelligence based software facilitates spirometry quality control in asthma and COPD clinical trials.
Article in ERJ open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design of a randomized controlled trial comparing hybrid care with standard care for people with pulmonary fibrosis.Respiratory research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in clinical physiology: System-wise applications in diagnostics, monitoring, and medical education.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2026Article
- SpiroLLM: Finetuning pretrained LLMs to understand spirogram time series with clinical validation in COPD reporting.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Classification of pulmonary diseases using machine learning and deep learning models on GLI-2012 standardized spirometry features.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Participant Experience, Acceptability and Feasibility of Virtual and Digitally Supported Visits in a Phase IIa COPD Trial.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Spirometry Quality Evaluation: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Innovation in technologies for monitoring lung function in patients with respiratory disease.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025Article
- COMPAIR: a comparison of directly supervised clinicERJ open research · 2025Article
- FEV1/FEV6 Cutoff Points to Avoid False Negatives When Using Portable Devices, PICO-6Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advances in artificial intelligence applications for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Chronic respiratory disease observatory for Africa (CHEST-Africa): study protocol for the prevalence, determinants and economic impacts of asthma and COPD in Africa.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Article
- Development and evaluation of a computerized algorithm for the interpretation of pulmonary function tests.PloS one · 2024Article
- Validity of the Espiro Mobile Application in the Interpretation of Spirometric Patterns: An App Accuracy Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale: Acquiring high-quality spirometry data in clinical trials is important, particularly when using forced expiratory volume in 1 s or forced vital capacity as primary end-points. In addition to quantitative criteria, the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) standards include subjective evaluation which introduces inter-rater variability and potential mistakes. We explored the value of artificial intelligence (AI)-based software (ArtiQ.QC) to assess spirometry quality and compared it to traditional over-reading control. Methods: A random sample of 2000 sessions (8258 curves) was selected from Chiesi COPD and asthma trials (n=1000 per disease). Acceptability using the 2005 ATS/ERS standards was determined by over-reader review and by ArtiQ.QC. Additionally, three respiratory physicians jointly reviewed a subset of curves (n=150). Results: The majority of curves (n=7267, 88%) were of good quality. The AI agreed with over-readers in 91% of cases, with 97% sensitivity and 93% positive predictive value. Performance was significantly better in the asthma group. In the revised subset, n=50 curves were repeated to assess intra-rater reliability (κ=0.83, 0.86 and 0.80 for each of the three reviewers). All reviewers agreed on 63% of 100 unique tests (κ=0.5). When reviewers set the consensus (gold standard), individual agreement with it was 88%, 94% and 70%. The agreement between AI and "gold-standard" was 73%; over-reader agreement was 46%. Conclusion: AI-based software can be used to measure spirometry data quality with comparable accuracy as experts. The assessment is a subjective exercise, with intra- and inter-rater variability even when the criteria are defined very precisely and objectively. By providing consistent results and immediate feedback to the sites, AI may benefit clinical trial conduct and variability reduction.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.