Back

Mapping the Zone of Uncertainty in Pulmonary Function Test Interpretation

Moffett, A. T.; McCormack, M. C.; Weissman, G. E.

2025-06-05 respiratory medicine
10.1101/2025.06.03.25328441 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundEuropean Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) guidelines for pulmonary function test (PFT) interpretation posit the existence of a "zone of uncertainty." However, as reference equations have been defined only for healthy lung function, the precise borders of the zone of uncertainty remain unspecified. To address this limitation, we sought to define distributions of both healthy and diseased lung function and to use these distributions to map the zone of uncertainty. MethodsWe used a latent class model to define distributions of healthy and diseased FEV1/FVC values. To represent the distribution of healthy FEV1/FVC values, we fit a Box-Cox Cole Green distribution to spirometry from healthy adult participants in the continuous National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Using the distribution of healthy FEV1/FVC values, we then fit a latent class model to FEV1/FVC data from adult patients who underwent pulmonary function testing at the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) between 2000 and 2023. The distribution of diseased FEV1/FVC values and the prior probabilities that FEV1/FVC values had been sampled from healthy and diseased populations were selected to maximize the likelihood of the observed UPHS data. We considered the normal, Box-Cox Cole Green, and Box-Cox power exponential distributions for the distribution of diseased FEV1/FVC values and selected the distribution that minimized the Bayesian information criterion. We then mapped the zone of uncertainty by identifying the range of FEV1/FVC values in which the distributions of healthy and diseased lung function overlapped. ResultsPre-bronchodilator spirometry data were collected from 14,075 NHANES participants-- of whom 6,063 were without respiratory symptoms or a history of tobacco use--and 41,437 UPHS patients. Healthy lung function was represented by a Box-Cox Cole Green distribution with a median of 0.81, a coefficient of variation of 0.08, and skewness of 1.70. Diseased lung function was best represented by a Box-Cox power exponential distribution with a median of 0.56, a coefficient of variation of 0.30, skewness of 0.91, and kurtosis of 2.36. In the latent class model, the prior probability that an FEV1/FVC value was healthy was 76.2%, while the prior probability that it was diseased was 23.8%. The overlap of the distributions of healthy and diseased FEV1/FVC values defined a zone of uncertainty in the interval [0.64, 0.95]. The FEV1/FVC values of 33,747 (81.4%) UPHS patients fell within the zone of uncertainty, including 30,288 (99.2%) patients with a normal FEV1/FVC and 3,459 (31.7%) patients with an abnormal FEV1/FVC. ConclusionThis exploratory study presents evidence that in a clinical cohort, most FEV1/FVC values fall within the zone of uncertainty. Further research is needed to develop optimal ways to represent and incorporate this uncertainty into PFT interpretation.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 16%
12.0%
3
European Respiratory Journal
59 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.0%
4
Thorax
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
ERJ Open Research
47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Respiratory Research
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
7
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.5%
8
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 22%
4.5%
10
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
11
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
12
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.3%
13
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
14
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
15
CHEST
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
16
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
17
Journal of Cystic Fibrosis
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
18
American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Physics in Medicine & Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
22
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
33 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
23
Pediatric Pulmonology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
24
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%