IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0001746.html

Comparative predictive modeling of pediatric spirometry reference equations in Jordanian children: Complex versus simple models

Author

Listed:
  • Walid Al-Qerem
  • Anan Jarab
  • Judith Eberhardt
  • Khalda Smairan
  • Yousef Mimi
  • Maher Khdour

Abstract

Spirometric interpretation relies on reference equations, yet equations developed in one population or age range may not transport. Reference equations use distributional models to account for nonlinear growth, their calibration may differ across populations, it remains uncertain whether machine-learning algorithms improve prediction beyond simpler transformed regression models. This two-phase cross-sectional study compared sex-specific predictive models. Phase 1 used the same 1,576-child derivation dataset used to develop the original Jordanian GAMLSS equation (Al-Qerem equation), allowing comparison with predictive modeling strategies. Phase 2 evaluated equations in a validation sample of 1,007 healthy children aged 6–18 years. Candidate models were evaluated on the scale after back-transformation of log-outcome predictions. Models included GBM for FEV1 in both sexes, GLM for FVC in both sexes, GLM for FEV1/FVC in girls, and GBM for FEV1/FVC in boys.FEV1 and FVC were predicted more accurately than FEV1/FVC, whose explained variance from age and height remained low across model classes and established equations. In external validation, the study model had the lowest mean squared error for female FEV1 and FVC, but did not consistently outperform GLI 2012, GLI 2022, or Al-Qerem equations in boys or for FEV1/FVC. Age-stratified analyses showed elevated FEV1 and FVC below-LLN rates in boys younger than 10 years across the study, Al-Qerem, GLI 2012, and GLI 2022 equations, whereas FEV1/FVC below-LLN proportions were generally closer to nominal values. These findings support comparative predictive modeling as a useful development framework, but do not show superiority of complex machine-learning methods or readiness for clinical deployment without further calibration and external validation. Carefully chosen transformations and calibration were more important than model complexity, and the best models differed by outcome and sex.Author summary: Breathing tests are interpreted by comparing a child’s measured lung function with expected values for children of similar age, sex, and height. Many clinics use international equations, but these equations may not fit every population equally well. We compared simple statistical prediction models and more flexible machine-learning algorithms for Jordanian children, using the same dataset that produced a previous Jordanian reference equation and then testing the equations in a separate group of children. The main finding was practical: more complex algorithms were not consistently better. Carefully chosen transformations and calibration were more important than model complexity, and the best models differed by outcome and sex. Lung volumes were predicted more reliably than the FEV1/FVC ratio, the relationship between the air blown out in the first second and the total forced breath. These results support local validation before adopting reference equations and show that future spirometry software should combine prediction with calibration checks rather than relying only on algorithmic complexity.

Suggested Citation

  • Walid Al-Qerem & Anan Jarab & Judith Eberhardt & Khalda Smairan & Yousef Mimi & Maher Khdour, 2026. "Comparative predictive modeling of pediatric spirometry reference equations in Jordanian children: Complex versus simple models," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-22, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0001746
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0001746
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0001746
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0001746&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001746?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0001746. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.