In 19 normal subjects in the supine posture, we compared accuracy and precision of calibration methods that utilized different ranges of tidal volumes and thoracoabdominal partitioning: spontaneous quiet breathing (QB), isovolume maneuvers, and voluntary efforts to breathe with variable tidal volume and thoracoabdominal partitioning. Thoracic and abdominal movements were measured with the respiratory area fluxometer. Calibration methods utilizing one or more types of respiratory efforts were applied to three measurement situations: QB, variable breathing (volume and thoracoabdominal partitioning), and simulated obstructive apnea (isovolume efforts). Qualitative diagnostic calibration (QDC) included QB data only. The isovolume method (ISOCAL) included isovolumetric efforts at end expiration (functional residual capacity) and QB. Multilinear regression analyses were performed on data sets that included 1) voluntary efforts to breathe with variable volume and thoracoabdominal partitioning (CAL 1), 2) QB in addition to variable volume and partitioning (CAL 2), and 3) isovolume maneuvers in addition to QB and variable volume and partitioning efforts (CAL 3). When calibration data included a wide range of tidal volume, variable thoracoabdominal partitioning, and isovolume efforts (CAL 3), a stable calibration with small bias and scatter during all respiratory patterns was obtained. Excluding isovolume maneuvers (CAL 2) and QB (CAL 1) did not diminish accuracy. Limiting data to isovolume efforts at functional residual capacity plus QB (ISO-CAL) caused a significant increase in scatter during variable breathing patterns. Limiting calibration data to that portion of QB with small variation in the uncalibrated sum of thoracic and abdominal movements (QDC) caused significant increases in scatter in both isovolume efforts and variable breathing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.