ArticleThe clinical respiratory journal2023
Using random forest machine learning on data from a large, representative cohort of the general population improves clinical spirometry references.
Article in The clinical respiratory journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative predictive modeling of pediatric spirometry reference equations in Jordanian children: Complex versus simple models.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Estimation of pulmonary function from time-resolved dynamic chest radiography using machine learning in patients with respiratory disease.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Training machine learning-based spirometry reference equations: a comparison with GAMLSS and GLI reference equations.European clinical respiratory journal · 2025Article
- Using random forest machine learning on data from a large, representative cohort of the general population improves clinical spirometry references.The clinical respiratory journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSpirometry is associated with several diagnostic difficulties, and as a result, misdiagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs. This study aims to investigate how random forest (RF) can be used to improve the existing clinical FVC and FEV1 reference values in a large and representative cohort of the general population of the US without known lung disease. MATERIALS AND
methodsFVC, FEV1, body measures, and demographic data from 23 433 people were extracted from NHANES. RF was used to develop different prediction models. The accuracy of RF was compared with the existing Danish clinical references, an improved multiple linear regression (MLR) model, and a model from the literature.
resultsThe correlation between actual and predicted FVC and FEV1 and the 95% confidence interval for RF were found to be FVC = 0.85 (0.85; 0.86) (p < 0.001), FEV1 = 0.92 (0.92; 0.93) (p < 0.001), and existing clinical references were FVC = 0.66 (0.64; 0.68) (p < 0.001) and FEV1 = 0.69 (0.67; 0.70) (p < 0.001). Slope and intercept for the RF models predicting FVC and FEV1 were FVC 1.06 and -238.04 (mL), FEV1: 0.86 and 455.36 (mL), and for the MLR models, slope and intercept were FVC: 0.99 and 38.56 39 (mL), and FEV1: 1.01 and -56.57-57 (mL).
conclusionsThe results point toward machine learning models such as RF have the potential to improve the prediction of estimated lung function for individual patients. These predictions are used as reference values and are an important part of assessing spirometry measurements in clinical practice. Further work is necessary in order to reduce the size of the intercepts obtained through these results.
Indexed as
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.