ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Comparative predictive modeling of pediatric spirometry reference equations in Jordanian children: Complex versus simple models.
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
Spirometric interpretation relies on reference equations, yet equations developed in one population or age range may not transport. Reference equations use distributional models to account for nonlinear growth, their calibration may differ across populations, it remains uncertain whether machine-learning algorithms improve prediction beyond simpler transformed regression models. This two-phase cross-sectional study compared sex-specific predictive models. Phase 1 used the same 1,576-child derivation dataset used to develop the original Jordanian GAMLSS equation (Al-Qerem equation), allowing comparison with predictive modeling strategies. Phase 2 evaluated equations in a validation sample of 1,007 healthy children aged 6-18 years. Candidate models were evaluated on the scale after back-transformation of log-outcome predictions. Models included GBM for FEV1 in both sexes, GLM for FVC in both sexes, GLM for FEV1/FVC in girls, and GBM for FEV1/FVC in boys.FEV1 and FVC were predicted more accurately than FEV1/FVC, whose explained variance from age and height remained low across model classes and established equations. In external validation, the study model had the lowest mean squared error for female FEV1 and FVC, but did not consistently outperform GLI 2012, GLI 2022, or Al-Qerem equations in boys or for FEV1/FVC. Age-stratified analyses showed elevated FEV1 and FVC below-LLN rates in boys younger than 10 years across the study, Al-Qerem, GLI 2012, and GLI 2022 equations, whereas FEV1/FVC below-LLN proportions were generally closer to nominal values. These findings support comparative predictive modeling as a useful development framework, but do not show superiority of complex machine-learning methods or readiness for clinical deployment without further calibration and external validation. Carefully chosen transformations and calibration were more important than model complexity, and the best models differed by outcome and sex.
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.