ArticleRespiratory medicine2025
Machine learning based detection of true ventilatory restriction.
Article in Respiratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- The Role and Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Pulmonary Function Tests: A Systematic Review.Current health sciences journalReview
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
rationaleSpirometry is only 50 % accurate for the detection of true ventilatory restriction, necessitating additional lung volume tests.
objectiveTo develop a detection tool for true lung restriction using spirometry and patient demographics.
methodsWe analyzed spirometry and lung volume data from 21,062 participants. Restrictive spirometric pattern (RSP) was defined by FEV
resultsOf 21,062 participants, 12,643 (60 %) had TVR, of whom 5,255 (41.6 %) had RSP. The accuracy of RSP alone in detection of TVR was 0.61 (95% CI 0.60-0.63) with sensitivity of 0.42 (95% CI 0.40-0.43) and specificity of 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.92). The LightGBM model outperformed RSP alone, with an accuracy of 0.78 (95% CI 0.77-0.80), area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.88-0.90), sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.75), and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.84-0.87).
conclusionsA machine learning model using demographics and spirometry can accurately detect true ventilatory restriction and lower the need for additional lung volume testing.
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.