ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Expiratory time constant patterns reveal obstructive lung mechanics in non-obstructive spirometry.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Based on the principle that increased airway resistance prolongs the expiratory time constant (TC), we investigated whether TC patterns could serve as a signature for obstruction. In this cross-sectional multicenter study of 19,937 validated spirometry records, we divided the descending expiratory flow-volume curve into five equal volume segments and derived consecutive TCs for each. A K-means algorithm trained on the normal subset defined data-driven patterns, which were then used to classify the entire cohort. We quantified pattern prevalence and used propensity score matching to assess spirometric differences between patterns within each spirometric category. Two distinct patterns were identified: a 'normal' pattern (stable consecutive TCs) and an 'obstructive' pattern (progressively prolonging TCs). The obstructive pattern was present in 7% of normal spirometry, 13% of possible restriction, and 33% of nonspecific FEV1 reduction, while 9% of patients meeting obstruction criteria had a normal TC pattern. In normal spirometry group, the obstructive pattern group showed lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (males: 2.7 vs 3.0 L; females: 1.8 vs 2.0 L), reduced FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) (males: 67% vs 76%; females: 68% vs 78%), and impaired small airway metrics, including maximal mid-expiratory flow (MMEF25-75) (males: 1.6 vs 2.6 L/s; females: 1.0 vs 1.8 L/s) and FEV3/FEV6 (males: 91% vs 94%; females: 91% vs 95%), all p < 0.001. Other spirometric groups mirrored these findings. The obstructive TC pattern represents a distinct physiological phenotype suggestive of obstructive lung mechanics and is highly prevalent across common spirometric categories.
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.