Journal of Applied Physiology Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol 90: 1025-1030, 2001;
8750-7587/01 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by De Groote, A.
Right arrow Articles by Verbandt, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by De Groote, A.
Right arrow Articles by Verbandt, Y.
Vol. 90, Issue 3, 1025-1030, March 2001

Mathematical assessment of qualitative diagnostic calibration for respiratory inductive plethysmography

Anne De Groote, Manuel Paiva, and Yves Verbandt

Biomedical Physics Laboratory, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium

We present a critical assessment of qualitative diagnostic calibration (QDC), which claims to provide a relative calibration of respiratory inductive plethysmography during natural breathing (Sackner MA, Watson H, Belsito AS, Feinerman D, Suarez M, Gonzalez G, Bizousky F, and Krieger B. J Appl Physiol 66: 410-420, 1989). QDC computes the calibration factor (K) by considering breaths of constant tidal volume (VT) and provides a criterion to select breaths when VT is unknown. We applied QDC on uncalibrated data constructed from simulated sets of thoracic and abdominal volumes, with a predefined K. As expected, QDC yields a correct K when applied to breaths at constant VT. In breathing at quasi-constant VT, the criterion for breath selection is shown to bias the results toward K = 1. For spontaneous breathing, the calculated K deviates from its predefined value and depends heavily on the selection criterion. We conclude that QDC will only provide a correct calibration factor when applied to an entire set of breaths with constant or quasi-constant VT. More generally, physiological conclusions based on QDC should be critically evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

thoracoabdominal partitioning; simulation; Konno-Mead model





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online