ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning Model to Predict Restriction from Spirometry.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Though European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) guidelines for pulmonary function test (PFT) interpretation recommend the use of the forced vital capacity (FVC) lower limit of normal (LLN) to exclude restriction, recent data suggest that the negative predictive value (NPV) of the FVC LLN is lower than has been accepted, particularly among non-Hispanic Black patients. We sought to develop and externally validate a machine learning (ML) model to predict restriction from spirometry and determine whether its use may improve the accuracy and equity of PFT interpretation. Methods: We included PFTs with both static and dynamic lung volume measurements for patients between 18 and 80 years of age who were tested at pulmonary diagnostic labs within two health systems. We used PFTs from one health system to train logistic regression, random forest, and boosted tree models to predict restriction using demographic, anthropometric, and spirometric data. We used PFTs from the second health system to externally validate these models. The primary measure of model performance was the NPV. Racial equity was assessed by comparing the NPV among non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients. Findings: A total of 42 462 PFTs were used for model development and 24 524 for external validation. The prevalence of restriction was 29.8% in the development dataset and 39.6% in the validation dataset. All three ML models outperformed the FVC LLN by a wide margin, both overall and among all demographic subgroups. The overall NPV of the random forest model (88.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 87.8% to 88.9%) was significantly greater than that of the FVC LLN (72.7%, 95% CI 72.1% to 73.3%). The NPV of the random forest model was greater than that of the FVC LLN among both non-Hispanic Black (74.6% [95% CI 72.5% to 76.6%] versus 49.5% [95% CI 47.8% to 51.2%]) and non-Hispanic White (90.9% [95% CI 90.3% to 91.5%] versus 79.6% [95% CI 78.9% to 80.3%]) patients. Interpretation: ML models to exclude restriction from spirometry improve the accuracy and equity of PFT interpretation but do not fully eliminate racial differences.
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.