ArticleScientific reports2023
Pattern recognition of forced oscillation technique measurement results using deep learning can identify asthmatic patients more accurately than setting reference ranges.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodological and applicability pitfalls of clinical prediction models for asthma diagnosis: a systematic review and critical appraisal of evidence.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
No official clinical reference values have been established for MostGraph, which measures total respiratory resistance and reactance using the forced oscillation technique, complicating result interpretation. This study aimed to establish a reference range for MostGraph measurements and examine its usefulness in discriminating participants with asthma from controls (participants without any respiratory diseases). The study also aimed to investigate the effectiveness of deep learning in discriminating between the two aforementioned groups. To establish reference ranges, the MostGraph measurements of healthy controls (n = 215) were power-transformed to distribute the data more normally. After inverse transformation, the mean ± standard deviation × 2 of the transformed values were used to establish the reference ranges. The number of measured items outside the reference ranges was evaluated to discriminate patients with asthma (n = 941) from controls. Additionally, MostGraph measurements were evaluated using deep learning. Although reference ranges were established, patients with asthma could not be discriminated from controls. However, with deep learning, we could discriminate between the two groups with 78% accuracy. Therefore, deep learning, which considers multiple measurements as a whole, was more effective in interpreting MostGraph measurement results than use of reference ranges, which considers each result individually.
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.