ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Mapping the Zone of Uncertainty in Pulmonary Function Test Interpretation.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) guidelines for pulmonary function test (PFT) interpretation posit the existence of a "zone of uncertainty." However, as reference equations have been defined only for healthy lung function, the precise borders of the zone of uncertainty remain unspecified. To address this limitation, we sought to define distributions of both healthy and diseased lung function and to use these distributions to map the zone of uncertainty. Methods: We used a latent class model to define distributions of healthy and diseased FEV Results: Pre-bronchodilator spirometry data were collected from 14,075 NHANES participants-of whom 6,063 were without respiratory symptoms or a history of tobacco use-and 41,437 UPHS patients. Healthy lung function was represented by a Box-Cox Cole Green distribution with a median of 0.81, a coefficient of variation of 0.08, and skewness of 1.70. Diseased lung function was best represented by a Box-Cox power exponential distribution with a median of 0.56, a coefficient of variation of 0.30, skewness of 0.91, and kurtosis of 2.36. In the latent class model, the prior probability that an FEV Conclusion: This exploratory study presents evidence that in a clinical cohort, most FEV
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.