Dataset Information

An Alternative Spirometric Measurement. Area under the Expiratory Flow-Volume Curve.

ABSTRACT: Rationale: Interpretation of spirometry is influenced by inherent limitations and by the normal or predicted reference values used. For example, traditional spirometric parameters such as "distal" airflows do not provide sufficient differentiating capacity, especially for mixed patterns or small airway disease.Objectives: We assessed the utility of an alternative spirometric parameter (area under the expiratory flow-volume curve [AEX]) in differentiating between normal, obstruction, restriction, and mixed patterns, as well as in severity stratification of traditional functional impairments.Methods: We analyzed 15,308 spirometry tests in subjects who had same-day lung volume assessments in a pulmonary function laboratory. Using Global Lung Initiative predicted values and standard criteria for pulmonary function impairment, we assessed the diagnostic performance of AEX in best-split partition and artificial neural network models.Results: The average square root AEX values were 3.32, 1.81, 2.30, and 1.64 L?s-0.5 in normal, obstruction, restriction, and mixed patterns, respectively. As such, in combination with traditional spirometric measurements, the square root of AEX differentiated well between normal, obstruction, restriction, and mixed defects. Using forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and FEV1/FVC z-scores plus the square root of AEX in a machine learning algorithm, diagnostic categorization of ventilatory impairments was accomplished with very low rates of misclassification (<9%). Especially for mixed ventilatory patterns, the neural network model performed best in improving the rates of diagnostic misclassification.Conclusions: Using a novel approach to lung function assessment in combination with traditional spirometric measurements, AEX differentiates well between normal, obstruction, restriction and mixed impairments, potentially obviating the need for more complex lung volume-based determinations.

SUBMITTER: Ioachimescu OC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7193817 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An Alternative Spirometric Measurement. Area under the Expiratory Flow-Volume Curve.

Ioachimescu Octavian C OC Stoller James K JK

Annals of the American Thoracic Society 20200501 5

<b>Rationale:</b> Interpretation of spirometry is influenced by inherent limitations and by the normal or predicted reference values used. For example, traditional spirometric parameters such as "distal" airflows do not provide sufficient differentiating capacity, especially for mixed patterns or small airway disease.<b>Objectives:</b> We assessed the utility of an alternative spirometric parameter (area under the expiratory flow-volume curve [AEX]) in differentiating between normal, obstruction ...[more]

PMID: 31899663

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe expiratory time constant (RCEXP), which is defined as the product of airway resistance and lung compliance, enable us to assess the mechanical properties of the respiratory system in mechanically ventilated patients. Although RCEXP could also be applied to spontaneously breathing patients, little is known about RCEXP calculated from the maximal expiratory flow-volume (MEFV) curve. The aim of our study was to determine the reference value for RCEXP, as well as to investigate the association between RCEXP and other respiratory function parameters, including the forced expiratory volume in 1?s (FEV1)/ forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio, maximal mid-expiratory flow rate (MMF), maximal expiratory flow at 50 and 25% of FVC (MEF50 and MEF25, respectively), ratio of MEF50 to MEF25 (MEF50/MEF25).MethodsSpirometric parameters were extracted from the records of patients aged 15?years or older who underwent pulmonary function testing as a routine preoperative examination before non-cardiac surgery at the University of Tokyo Hospital. RCEXP was calculated in each patient from the slope of the descending limb of the MEFV curve using two points corresponding to MEF50 and MEF25. Airway obstruction was defined as an FEV1/FVC and FEV1 below the statistically lower limit of normal.ResultsWe retrospectively analyzed 777 spirometry records, and 62 patients were deemed to have airway obstruction according to Japanese spirometric reference values. The cut-off value for RCEXP was 0.601?s with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.934 (95% confidence interval?=?0.898-0.970). RCEXP was strongly associated with FEV1/FVC, and was moderately associated with MMF and MEF50. However, RCEXP was less associated with MEF25 and MEF50/MEF25.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that an RCEXP of longer than approximately 0.6?s can be linked to the presence of airway obstruction. Application of the concept of RCEXP to spontaneously breathing subjects was feasible, using our simple calculation method.

Project description:BackgroundIncremental value (IncV) evaluates the performance change between an existing risk model and a new model. Different IncV metrics do not always agree with each other. For example, compared with a prescribed-dose model, an ovarian-dose model for predicting acute ovarian failure has a slightly lower area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) but increases the area under the precision-recall curve (AP) by 48%. This phenomenon of disagreement is not uncommon, and can create confusion when assessing whether the added information improves the model prediction accuracy.MethodsIn this article, we examine the analytical connections and differences between the AUC IncV (ΔAUC) and AP IncV (ΔAP). We also compare the true values of these two IncV metrics in a numerical study. Additionally, as both are semi-proper scoring rules, we compare them with a strictly proper scoring rule: the IncV of the scaled Brier score (ΔsBrS) in the numerical study.ResultsWe demonstrate that ΔAUC and ΔAP are both weighted averages of the changes (from the existing model to the new one) in separating the risk score distributions between events and non-events. However, ΔAP assigns heavier weights to the changes in higher-risk regions, whereas ΔAUC weights the changes equally. Due to this difference, the two IncV metrics can disagree, and the numerical study shows that their disagreement becomes more pronounced as the event rate decreases. In the numerical study, we also find that ΔAP has a wide range, from negative to positive, but the range of ΔAUC is much smaller. In addition, ΔAP and ΔsBrS are highly consistent, but ΔAUC is negatively correlated with ΔsBrS and ΔAP when the event rate is low.ConclusionsΔAUC treats the wins and losses of a new risk model equally across different risk regions. When neither the existing or new model is the true model, this equality could attenuate a superior performance of the new model for a sub-region. In contrast, ΔAP accentuates the change in the prediction accuracy for higher-risk regions.

Project description:BackgroundRisk prediction models have been proposed for various diseases and are being improved as new predictors are identified. A major challenge is to determine whether the newly discovered predictors improve risk prediction. Decision curve analysis has been proposed as an alternative to the area under the curve and net reclassification index to evaluate the performance of prediction models in clinical scenarios. The decision curve computed using the net benefit can evaluate the predictive performance of risk models at a given or range of threshold probabilities. However, when the decision curves for 2 competing models cross in the range of interest, it is difficult to identify the best model as there is no readily available summary measure for evaluating the predictive performance. The key deterrent for using simple measures such as the area under the net benefit curve is the assumption that the threshold probabilities are uniformly distributed among patients.MethodsWe propose a novel measure for performing decision curve analysis. The approach estimates the distribution of threshold probabilities without the need of additional data. Using the estimated distribution of threshold probabilities, the weighted area under the net benefit curve serves as the summary measure to compare risk prediction models in a range of interest.ResultsWe compared 3 different approaches, the standard method, the area under the net benefit curve, and the weighted area under the net benefit curve. Type 1 error and power comparisons demonstrate that the weighted area under the net benefit curve has higher power compared to the other methods. Several simulation studies are presented to demonstrate the improvement in model comparison using the weighted area under the net benefit curve compared to the standard method.ConclusionsThe proposed measure improves decision curve analysis by using the weighted area under the curve and thereby improves the power of the decision curve analysis to compare risk prediction models in a clinical scenario.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess differences in vancomycin AUC estimates from two common, clinically applied first-order pharmacokinetic equation methods compared with Bayesian estimates.MethodsA cohort of patients who received vancomycin and therapeutic drug monitoring was studied. First-order population pharmacokinetic equations were used to guide initial empirical dosing. After receipt of the first dose, patients had peak and trough serum levels drawn and steady-state AUC was estimated using first-order pharmacokinetic equations as standard care. We subsequently created a Bayesian model and used individual Empirical Bayes Estimates to precisely calculate vancomycin AUC24-48, AUC48-72 and AUC72-96 in this cohort. AUC at steady state (AUCSS) differences from the first-order methods were compared numerically and categorically (i.e. below, within or above 400-600 mg·h/L) to Bayesian AUCs, which served as the gold standard.ResultsA total of 65 adult inpatients with 409 plasma samples were included in this analysis. A two-compartment intravenous infusion model with first-order elimination fit the data well. The mean of Bayesian AUC24-48 was not significantly different from AUC estimates from the two first-order pharmacokinetic equation methods (P = 0.68); however, Bayesian AUC48-72 and Bayesian AUC72-96 were both significantly different when compared with both first-order pharmacokinetic equation methods (P < 0.01 for each). At the patient level, categorical classifications of AUC estimates from the two first-order pharmacokinetic equation methods differed from categorizations derived from the Bayesian calculations. Categorical agreement was ∼50% between first-order and Bayesian calculations, with declining categorical agreement observed with longer treatment courses. Differences in categorical agreement between calculation methods could potentially result in different dose recommendations for the patient.ConclusionsBayesian-calculated AUCs between 48-72 and 72-96 h intervals were significantly different from first-order pharmacokinetic method-estimated AUCs at steady state. The various calculation methods resulted in different categorical classification, which could potentially lead to erroneous dosing adjustments in approximately half of the patients.

Dataset Information

An Alternative Spirometric Measurement. Area under the Expiratory Flow-Volume Curve.

Publications

An Alternative Spirometric Measurement. Area under the Expiratory Flow-Volume Curve.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets