ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Impact of bronchodilator responsiveness on lung age in patients with respiratory diseases and/or symptoms: implications for clinical practice from a cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung age (LA) that expresses lung function as a form of biological age and facilitates clinical interpretation. Bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) is important for assessing airway reversibility, but its influence on LA remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of BDR on LA and to explore its clinical implications. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed participants with respiratory disease and/or symptoms who underwent spirometry and BDR testing between January 2023 and December 2024. LA was calculated using a reference equation established from healthy, non-smoking Chinese adults. Participants were categorized into three groups: normal [the difference between lung age and age (DeltaLA) ≤0], normally high [DeltaLA >0 and ≤ upper limit of normal for DeltaLA (DeltaLAULN)], and abnormally high (DeltaLA > DeltaLAULN). A random forest model was used to identify predictors of post-LA improvement. Nonlinear regression was employed to evaluate associations between DeltaLA and spirometric parameters. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the ability of difference between ULN and LA (ULNLA) and spirometric measurements to predict a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second to forced vital capacity (FEV Results: Nine thousand three hundred and sixteen participants (mean age 58.6±12.9 years; 69.7% male) were included. After bronchodilator, LA significantly improved and 34.03% of those in normally high LA improved to normal group (all P<0.001); 21.83% of participants in the abnormally high LA group had a significant BDR, compared with 3.68% and 4.02% in the normal and normally high LA groups, respectively (P<0.001). DeltaLA was correlated with FEV Conclusions: Pre-bronchodilator LA alone may result in misclassification, whereas post-bronchodilator LA provides a more accurate evaluation. ULNLA demonstrates predictive ability of airflow limitation is comparable to FEV1% predicted.
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.