Examining discordance in spirometry reference equations: A retrospective study.

IF 2.2 Q3 PHYSIOLOGY
Gerald S Zavorsky, Sherif Elkinany, Abdullah Alismail, Suman B Thapamagar, Michael H Terry, James D Anholm, Paresh C Giri
{"title":"Examining discordance in spirometry reference equations: A retrospective study.","authors":"Gerald S Zavorsky, Sherif Elkinany, Abdullah Alismail, Suman B Thapamagar, Michael H Terry, James D Anholm, Paresh C Giri","doi":"10.14814/phy2.70212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to evaluate discordance, binary classification, and model fit between race-predicted and race-neutral spirometry prediction equations. Spirometry data from 9506 patients (18-95 years old) self-identifying as White, Black, or Hispanic were analyzed, focusing on the lower limit of normal (LLN). Best-fit prediction equations were developed from 3771 patients with normal spirometry, using Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) to compare models with and without race as a covariate. Results showed that including race as a covariate improved model fit, reducing BIC by at least ten units compared to Race-Neutral equations. Discordance between race-specific and race-neutral equations for detecting airway obstruction and restrictive spirometry patterns ranged from 4% to 13%. Using race-neutral equations resulted in false discovery rates (FDR) of 14% for Hispanics and 45% for Blacks and false negative rates (FNR) of 21% for Hispanics and 27% for Blacks in diagnosing airway obstruction. These findings indicate that removing race as a covariate in spirometry equations increases FDR and FNR, leading to higher misclassification rates. The 4%-13% discordance in interpreting airway obstruction and restrictive patterns has significant clinical implications, underscoring the need for careful consideration in developing spirometry reference equations.</p>","PeriodicalId":20083,"journal":{"name":"Physiological Reports","volume":"13 5","pages":"e70212"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11865334/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.70212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate discordance, binary classification, and model fit between race-predicted and race-neutral spirometry prediction equations. Spirometry data from 9506 patients (18-95 years old) self-identifying as White, Black, or Hispanic were analyzed, focusing on the lower limit of normal (LLN). Best-fit prediction equations were developed from 3771 patients with normal spirometry, using Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) to compare models with and without race as a covariate. Results showed that including race as a covariate improved model fit, reducing BIC by at least ten units compared to Race-Neutral equations. Discordance between race-specific and race-neutral equations for detecting airway obstruction and restrictive spirometry patterns ranged from 4% to 13%. Using race-neutral equations resulted in false discovery rates (FDR) of 14% for Hispanics and 45% for Blacks and false negative rates (FNR) of 21% for Hispanics and 27% for Blacks in diagnosing airway obstruction. These findings indicate that removing race as a covariate in spirometry equations increases FDR and FNR, leading to higher misclassification rates. The 4%-13% discordance in interpreting airway obstruction and restrictive patterns has significant clinical implications, underscoring the need for careful consideration in developing spirometry reference equations.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Physiological Reports
Physiological Reports PHYSIOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
374
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Physiological Reports is an online only, open access journal that will publish peer reviewed research across all areas of basic, translational, and clinical physiology and allied disciplines. Physiological Reports is a collaboration between The Physiological Society and the American Physiological Society, and is therefore in a unique position to serve the international physiology community through quick time to publication while upholding a quality standard of sound research that constitutes a useful contribution to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信