Estimating a Physiological Lung Function Score and Biological Sex Using Pulmonary Function Tests and Machine Learning: Retrospective Study.

Estimating a Physiological Lung Function Score and Biological Sex Using Pulmonary Function Tests and Machine Learning: Retrospective Study - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice JMIR AI . 2026 Jun 1;5:e89060. doi: 10.2196/89060 Estimating a Physiological Lung Function Score and Biological Sex Using Pulmonary Function Tests and Machine Learning: Retrospective Study Patrick W Johnson 1 , Zachary S Quicksall 1 , Jieun Lee 1 , Augustine S Lee 1 , Kaiser G Lim 2 , Victor E Ortega 3 , Shivaram Poigai Arunachalam 1 , Scott A Helgeson 1, ✉ Editor: Gang Luo Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic Hospital, 4500 San Pablo Road S, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, United States, 1 9049536728 2 Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Rochester, MN, United States 3 Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, United States ✉ Scott A Helgeson, MD, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic Hospital, 4500 San Pablo Road S, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, United States, 1 9049536728; helgeson.scott@mayo.edu Received 2025 Dec 5; Revised 2026 May 7; Accepted 2026 May 7; Collection date 2026. Copyright © Patrick W Johnson, Zachary S Quicksall, Jieun Lee, Augustine S Lee, Kaiser G Lim, Victor E Ortega, Shivaram Poigai Arunachalam, Scott A Helgeson. Originally published in JMIR AI (https://ai.jmir.org) This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR AI, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.ai.jmir.org/ , as well as this copyright and license information must be included. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13224920  PMID: 42224015 Abstract Background Sex and age have long been known to affect lung function. Several biological variables and anatomical factors may contribute to sex- and age-related differences in pulmonary metrics. Objective We hypothesized that a machine learning model could be trained to predict a person’s lung age and self-reported sex using pulmonary function test data. Methods We retrospectively analyzed complete pulmonary function tests from 6392 healthy adults across 3 Mayo Clinic regions. Four models of increasing complexity were trained using gradient-boosted machines to predict chronological age and biological sex. Model interpretability was assessed using Shapley additive explanation values and partial dependence plots. Quantile regression was used to estimate reference percentiles for predicted lung age. Results The best-performing age model (model 4, inclusive of time-series features) achieved a root mean square error of 7.01 years (95% CI 6.73‐7.30) and a mean absolute error of 5.55 years (95% CI 5.32‐5.80). The best-performing sex classification model (model 4) achieved an area under the curve of 0.981 (95% CI 0.975‐0.988), sensitivity of 91.7% (95% CI 89.0%‐93.9%), and specificity of 95.6% (95% CI 93.9%‐97%). Key predictors for lung age included residual volume as a percentage of total lung capacity (TLC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and alveolar volume. For sex classification, peak expiratory flow, height, and age were among the most influential features. Age-stratified evaluation showed the overestimation of lung age in younger adults and underestimation in older adults. Predicted lung age increased broadly with chronological age, and quantile regression provided normative reference ranges. Conclusions Applying artificial intelligence to pulmonary function data allows the prediction of a patient’s sex and estimation of lung age. The ability of an artificial intelligence algorithm to determine physiological lung age, with further validation, may serve as a measure of overall respiratory health. Introduction Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) are a series of noninvasive procedures that assess the overall function and health of a patient’s lungs. A complete PFT can measure many variables reflecting different aspects of the patient’s ventilatory and gas exchange function. Deviation from population-based normative values is fundamental to the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of a variety of respiratory disorders. Several physiologic and pathologic patterns are generated by combinations of lung function variables from PFTs. In response to this latter concern, the concept of “lung age” derived from PFTs was developed as a means of “summarizing” the patient’s lung function and making it more intuitive to patients [ 1-7 ]. Because it is derived from multiple measures from the PFT, lung age may be more reflective of the patient’s overall pulmonary physiology. Scientifically, lung age has shown clinical importance in a randomized controlled trial by increasing smoking cessation [ 8 ]. The current methodology to calculate lung age depends on multiple linear regression methods and uses discrete variables obtained from the spirometry and sometimes additional clinical parameters [ 3 , 4 ]. Lung age is a single summary variable useful in patient education, research, and clinical practice [ 9-13 ]. For example, in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) assesses the severity of obstruction, while in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), the forced vital capacity (FVC) reflects lung capacity and guides prognosis and management [ 10-13 ]. Although FEV1 and FVC are critical variables in obstructive or restrictive disorders, other variables, such as the residual volume (RV) or the diffusing capacity, can provide additional information on the patient’s respiratory function. It is also not uncommon to have mixed disorders present in the same patient, for example, combined pulmonary fibrosis with emphysema and IPF complicated by pulmonary arterial hypertension [ 14 , 15 ]. While convenient, the use of individual variables may therefore not communicate the breadth of the patient’s lung pathology, and importantly, these variables are conceptually less meaningful to patients who often lack the requisite medical literacy to understand respiratory pathophysiology. PFTs reveal notable differences between biological sexes due to anatomical and physiological variations, impacting respiratory health. Men typically exhibit larger lung volumes and higher absolute values for FVC and FEV1 even when adjusted for age and height, while women often have smaller airway diameters and reduced expiratory flow rates [ 16-18 ]. A population study analyzed 3250 patients and found that sex differences in breathlessness are explained by absolute FEV1 values [ 16 ]. Given these differences, machine learning techniques are well-suited to predict patient sex based on pulmonary function test data. In this investigation, we aimed to create an accurate lung age and sex prediction tool by incorporating all key physiological measures from the complete PFT and applying machine learning methods. We report here the development and validation of a machine learning–assisted lung age and sex prediction tool. Methods Study Population and Data Sources This retrospective study evaluated all adult patients (aged 18 years or older) who underwent at least 1 PFT between July 2001 and May 2024 at Mayo Clinic in Florida, Rochester, and northwest Wisconsin. Ethical Considerations The study was deemed exempt by the Mayo clinic institutional review board (IRB #24‐001843), with a waiver of consent. Individuals under 18 years of age and patients who opted out of authorizing their data for research use were excluded from the analysis. Demographic information, diagnostic codes, procedure records, and flowsheet data were electronically extracted from the electronic health record system. PFT data were obtained using SentrySuite equipment (Vyaire Medical) and securely stored in an on-premises research database. All data were deidentified for this study, and no compensation was provided to the participants. Derivation of the Healthy Training Cohort To ensure that the models learned patterns representative of healthy pulmonary physiology, we derived a training cohort composed of patients without clinical or physiological evidence of respiratory disease. This allowed lung age and sex predictions to reflect normal variation rather than pathological changes. PFTs and associated patient records were evaluated according to the following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Only baseline, complete PFTs, including spirometry, lung volume, and diffusion capacity assessments, were included. For patients with multiple complete PFTs in the medical record, only the earliest test was selected. When multiple curves were recorded during a single session, only the best curve was retained and used for this study. Tests were excluded if they did not meet the criteria for normal lung function as defined by the American Thoracic Society guidelines or if they were classified under GOLD criteria as category 1 [ 10 , 19 ]. Tests were also excluded if they were missing key metrics (eg, FEV₁, FVC, or FEV₁/FVC) or if measured values fell outside the predicted lower and upper limits of normal. Patients were excluded if they had any documented history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, interstitial lung disease, sarcoidosis, bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, pleural effusions, malignant neoplasms involving the lung, bronchus, or trachea, or any other documented lung disease. Those with a history of tobacco use or prior lung transplant were also excluded. PFTs associated with a Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale score >1 at the time of testing were excluded. Finally, patients were excluded if their BMI at the time of testing was classified as underweight or as class 2 or 3 obesity, or if their recorded height fell outside the range of 1.21 to 2.13 m [ 19 ]. Model Data and Development Before model development, the dataset was randomly split into mutually exclusive training (n=5134, 80%) and testing (n=1258, 20%) sets, ensuring that each patient appeared in only 1 set. All modeling and hyperparameter tuning were performed using the training set, while final performance was assessed on the independent testing set. Baseline demographic and physiologic characteristics were compared between the training and testing sets using standardized mean differences, with a threshold of <0.1 indicating acceptable balance [ 20 ]. For each outcome, chronological age (regression) and sex (classification), four progressively complex models were constructed: Model 1 (basic spirometry): Included only demographic variables and features routinely available in portable and clinical spirometry Model 2 (expanded spirometry): Incorporated additional spirometry-derived variables beyond those included in model 1 Model 3 (full discrete PFT): Included all variables from spirometry, lung volume, and diffusion capacity tests Model 4 (time series): Included all variables from model 3, along with time-series features derived from expiratory flow-volume curves (eg, autocorrelation, spikiness, flatness, Hurst exponent, and nonlinearity) A complete list of input features used in each model is provided in Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 . Each of the 8 models (4 predicting age and 4 predicting sex) was trained using gradient-boosted machines. Hyperparameters, including learning rate, maximum tree depth, sample rate, column sample rate, and the number of trees, were optimized using a grid search of 144 candidate combinations with 5-fold cross-validation. For age prediction, the model with the lowest average root mean square error (RMSE) across folds was selected. For sex classification, the model with the highest average area under the curve (AUC) was selected. The final tuned hyperparameters for each model are shown in Table S9 in Multimedia Appendix 1 . Final model performance was assessed using the independent test set. For age prediction, performance was summarized using RMSE, mean absolute error (MAE), and the coefficient of determination ( R ²). Predicted values were compared with chronological age using scatter plots and heat maps to visualize accuracy across the age spectrum. Pairwise differences in absolute prediction errors were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test on the hold-out test set. Performance was also benchmarked against the existing lung age model published by Parkes et al [ 8 ]. For sex classification, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated, and AUC was calculated alongside standard binary classification metrics. Pairwise comparisons of AUC were conducted using DeLong’s paired test for correlated ROC curves. To evaluate whether model accuracy varied across the age spectrum, we computed age-stratified performance on the independent test set for models 3 and 4. Patients were grouped into 7 age bins (18‐29, 30‐39, 40‐49, 50‐59, 60‐69, 70‐79, and 80 years or older). Within each bin, we calculated sample size, RMSE, MAE, mean signed prediction error, and median signed prediction error, defining signed error as predicted age minus chronological age. Bin-level 95% CIs were estimated using nonparametric bootstraps with 2000 resamples. To quantify the contribution of anthropometric variables to model performance, we performed a sensitivity analysis in which height and weight were removed from the feature sets for models 3 and 4. Separate age and sex models were retrained using the same training set, hyperparameter grid, 5-fold cross-validation strategy, and model-selection criteria as in the primary analysis. Performance was then evaluated on the unchanged independent test set and compared with the corresponding primary models. Calibration of the sex classification models was assessed on the independent test set using reliability diagrams, the Brier score, the expected calibration error, and the Spiegelhalter z statistic. To facilitate the interpretation of model predictions, Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values were computed to quantify the contribution of each input feature. SHAP summary plots illustrated both the direction and magnitude of variable effects. Partial dependence plots were also generated for high-impact features to visualize their marginal effect on predicted outcomes, independent of other variables. To define normative ranges for predicted lung age across the lifespan, quantile regression was applied to the full dataset (training and testing combined). Analyses were performed for 2 models—the full discrete-feature model (model 3) and the simplified spirometry model (model 1)—to provide reference curves for both the higher-performing discrete PFT model and the simpler spirometry-based model that may be more feasible in broader clinical settings. Predicted lung age was regressed on chronological age using second-degree polynomial terms, with the Barrodale and Roberts algorithm used to estimate the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles [ 21 ]. This approach yielded smooth, continuous percentile curves across the age spectrum. Software and Statistical Analysis All data processing, statistical analyses, and model development were performed using R version 4.2.2 (R Core Team) and the H 2 O machine-learning framework (version 3.44.0.3). Reported P values are 2-sided, and statistical significance was defined as P <.05. Model performance was summarized with 95% CIs on the independent test set. For age prediction, CIs for RMSE, MAE, and R ² were estimated using 2000 patient-level bootstrap resamples. For sex classification, AUC CIs were estimated using the DeLong method, and CIs for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were estimated using exact binomial methods at a probability threshold of 0.5. Categorical predictors were retained as categorical fields, continuous predictors were not centered or scaled, and no imputation was performed. Missing predictor values were handled during gradient-boosted machine fitting. Results Study Cohort A total of 68,707 patients underwent a complete PFT during the study period, of whom 6392 met the inclusion criteria for the healthy cohort. Key patient characteristics and PFT measurements, stratified by data split (training: n=5134; testing: n=1258), are shown in Table 1 . The median age was 59.0 (IQR 46.9‐68.6; range 18.0‐95.5) years, and patients were predominantly female (n=3698, 57.9%) and Caucasian (n=5721, 89.5%). No meaningful differences were observed between the training and testing sets, with all standardized differences <0.1. Table 1. Patient demographics. Characteristics Test (n=1258) Train (n=5134) Total (n=6392) Standard difference Age (y), median (IQR; range) 58.6 (46.8-68.1; 18.0‐94.2) 59.0 (46.9-68.7; 18.0‐95.5) 59.0 (46.9-68.6; 18.0‐95.5) 0.015 Sex, n (%) 0.004 Female 730 (58) 2968 (57.8) 3698 (57.9) Male 528 (42) 2166 (42.2) 2694 (42.1) Weight (kg), median (IQR; range) 77.2 (66.2-89.2; 43.8‐144.4) 77.5 (66.3-88.9; 43.3‐128.0) 77.4 (66.3-88.9; 43.3‐144.4) 0.018 Height (m), median (IQR; range) 1.7 (1.6-1.8; 1.5‐2.1) 1.7 (1.6-1.8; 1.4‐2.0) 1.7 (1.6-1.8; 1.4‐2.1) 0.001 Slow vital capacity, median (IQR; range) 3.6 (3.0-4.4; 1.7‐7.1) 3.6 (3.0-4.4; 1.6‐7.4) 3.6 (3.0-4.4; 1.6‐7.4) 0.006 Race, n (%) 0.062 Asian 18 (1.4) 89 (1.7) 107 (1.7) Black 100 (7.9) 352 (6.9) 452 (7.1) Caucasian 1123 (89.3) 4598 (89.6) 5721 (89.5) Other/mixed 12 (1) 64 (1.2) 76 (1.2) US Asian 5 (0.4) 31 (0.6) 36 (0.6) Forced vital capacity, median (IQR; range) 3.6 (3.0, 4.3; 1.6‐7.1) 3.6 (3.0, 4.4; 1.6‐7.4) 3.6 (3.0, 4.4; 1.6‐7.4) 0.004 Forced expiratory volume (1 s), median (IQR; range) 2.8 (2.4-3.4; 1.3‐5.6) 2.8 (2.3-3.5; 1.2‐6.2) 2.8 (2.3-3.5; 1.2‐6.2) 0.004 FEV1 a /FVC b ratio, median (IQR; range) 0.8 (0.8-0.8; 0.6‐1.0) 0.8 (0.7-0.8; 0.6‐1.0) 0.8 (0.7-0.8; 0.6‐1.0) 0.020 Peak expiratory flow, median (IQR; range) 7.8 (6.5-9.5; 3.0‐15.5) 7.6 (6.3-9.5; 2.4‐17.3) 7.7 (6.4-9.5; 2.4‐17.3) 0.023 Forced expiratory time, median (IQR; range) 7.8 (6.7-9.4; 1.7‐21.6) 7.8 (6.7-9.3; 1.3‐25.6) 7.8 (6.7-9.4; 1.3‐25.6) 0.005 Functional residual capacity, median (IQR; range) 3.0 (2.6-3.6; 1.5‐6.8) 3.0 (2.5-3.6; 1.0‐7.6) 3.0 (2.6-3.6; 1.0‐7.6) 0.027 Residual volume, median (IQR; range) 1.9 (1.6-2.3; 0.3‐4.6) 1.9 (1.6-2.3; 0.5‐5.4) 1.9 (1.6-2.3; 0.3‐5.4) 0.025 Diffusing capacity, median (IQR; range) 6.6 (5.6-8.1; 2.7‐14.0) 6.7 (5.5-8.2; 2.0‐16.7) 6.7 (5.5-8.2; 2.0‐16.7) 0.012 Alveolar volume, median (IQR; range) 4.9 (4.2-5.8; 2.5‐9.5) 4.9 (4.2-5.9; 2.4‐9.6) 4.9 (4.2-5.8; 2.4‐9.6) 0.005 Corrected diffusing capacity 0.007 Missing, n 312 1280 1592 Median (IQR; range) 6.8 (5.7-8.2; 2.7‐13.7) 6.8 (5.6-8.3; 2.1‐15.6) 6.8 (5.6-8.3; 2.1‐15.6) Open in a new tab a FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 second. b FVC: forced vital capacity. Age Prediction Models Among the 4 age prediction models, model 4 (time-series features) achieved the highest accuracy, with an RMSE of 7.01 years (95% CI 6.73‐7.30) and an MAE of 5.55 years (95% CI 5.32‐5.80). Model 3 (discrete PFT variables) followed closely, with an RMSE of 7.19 years (95% CI 6.90‐7.49) and an MAE of 5.69 years (95% CI 5.45‐5.95). Models 1 and 2, based on basic and expanded spirometry, respectively, demonstrated higher errors, with RMSEs of 9.29 years (95% CI 8.87‐9.68) and 9.13 years (95% CI 8.74‐9.49), and MAEs of 7.32 years (95% CI 6.99‐7.65) and 7.27 years (95% CI 6.96‐7.58), respectively (Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). Pairwise comparisons of absolute errors showed that model 4 outperformed all other models ( P <.05). Model 3 also outperformed both simpler models ( P <.05), whereas models 1 and 2 did not differ significantly ( P =.33). All models outperformed the prior lung age model published by Parkes et al [ 8 ] ( P <.05). Figure 1A and B display predicted versus chronological age for models 1 and 3, respectively, and Figure 1C and D show the corresponding binned heat maps. Figure 1. Predicted versus chronological age across models. (A and B) Scatter plots of predicted versus actual age for 2 representative models, with the line of identity (red) shown for reference. (C and D) Binned heatmaps showing the joint distribution of predicted and actual age, with color intensity representing the proportion of patients in each bin. Left panels: basic spirometry model (model 1); right panels: discrete pulmonary function test (PFT) model (model 3). Models tended to overestimate lung age in younger adults and underestimate lung age in older adults, with the smallest errors near the cohort median age. Open in a new tab Age-stratified evaluation on the independent test set showed an age-dependent signed error in both models 3 and 4. In model 4, predictions were higher than chronological age in younger adults and lower than chronological age in older adults, consistent with regression to the mean toward the cohort median age. The mean signed error was 4.64 years (95% CI 3.08‐6.08) in participants aged 18 to 29 years and −6.47 years (95% CI −7.78 to −5.22) in participants aged 80 years or older. Errors were the lowest in the 60‐ to 69-year age group. Similar patterns were observed for model 3 (Tables S5 and S6 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ; Figures S2-5S in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). In model 3, the most influential features for predicting lung age included RV as a percentage of TLC, FEV₁, and alveolar volume. Additional contributors included diffusing capacity, sex, FVC, and anthropometric variables, such as height and weight. Higher RV% and lower FEV₁ values were associated with older predicted lung age. Partial dependence plots for RV as a percentage of TLC and FEV₁ revealed nonlinear associations with the model output ( Figure 2 ). Figure 2. Feature contributions to predicted lung age (model 3). Top: Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) summary plot showing the relative importance and directional influence of features on predicted lung age. Each point represents an individual prediction, colored by the normalized value of the corresponding feature. Features at the top had the greatest overall impact on model output. Bottom: Partial dependence plots (PDPs) for 2 influential features—residual volume (RV) as a percentage of total lung capacity (TLC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)—illustrating their marginal effects on predicted lung age. Shaded bands represent 95% CIs. FVC: forced vital capacity; TLC: total lung capacity. Open in a new tab Anthropometric ablation analyses showed only modest changes in age-prediction performance after the removal of height and weight. For age prediction, RMSE changed from 7.19 to 7.36 years in model 3 and from 7.01 to 7.10 years in model 4, while MAE changed from 5.69 to 5.79 years in model 3 and from 5.55 to 5.59 years in model 4 (Table S7 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). Predicted lung age increased broadly with chronological age across the cohort ( Figure 3 ). Smoothed quantile regression curves captured the distribution of predicted lung age at each age, with the 10th to 90th percentile bands centered around the median. Percentile estimates at 10-year intervals are summarized for both models 1 and 3 in Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1 . Figure 3. Quantile regression of predicted lung age (model 3). Predicted lung age is plotted against chronological age, with quantile regression curves representing the 10th, 25th, 50th (median), 75th, and 90th percentiles. The central solid line shows the smoothed median prediction, with shaded bands illustrating the interquartile (25th-75th) and 10th-90th percentile ranges. Percentile estimates were derived using second-degree polynomial fits on the full dataset. Open in a new tab Sex Prediction Models All 4 models demonstrated high discriminatory performance in predicting biological sex. Model 1 (basic spirometry) achieved an AUC of 0.965 (95% CI 0.955‐0.975), and model 2 (expanded spirometry) improved to 0.978 (95% CI 0.970‐0.986). Models 3 (discrete PFT variables) and 4 (time-series features) performed similarly, with each achieving an AUC of 0.981 (model 3: 95% CI 0.974‐0.988; model 4: 95% CI 0.975‐0.988) (Table S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). Pairwise comparisons showed that model 1 performed worse than models 2, 3, and 4. Model 4 outperformed model 2 ( P =.02), whereas the difference between models 2 and 3 was marginal ( P =.06) and models 3 and 4 did not differ significantly ( P =.67). Model 4 achieved a sensitivity of 91.7% (95% CI 89.0%‐93.9%), specificity of 95.6% (95% CI 93.9%‐97.0%), positive predictive value of 93.8% (95% CI 91.4%‐95.7%), and negative predictive value of 94.1% (95% CI 92.1%‐95.7%). Figure S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 presents the ROC curves and classification performance for models 1 and 3. Performance was consistent across racial and age subgroups, with no significant interaction effects detected ( P >.05). Calibration was favorable overall across the sex models, with Brier scores ranging from 0.049 to 0.066 and the expected calibration error below 0.04 for all models (Table S10 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ; Figure S6 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). The most influential features in model 3 for sex classification included peak expiratory flow, height, and age. Additional contributors included TLC, alveolar volume, weight, and corrected diffusing capacity. SHAP distributions revealed distinct patterns by predicted sex, with peak expiratory flow and height exhibiting clear directional contributions toward male versus female classification. Partial dependence plots further illustrated the marginal effects of these features on the probability of male sex ( Figure 4 ). Figure 4. Feature contributions to sex classification (model 3). Top: Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) summary plot showing the relative importance and directional impact of individual features on the predicted probability of male sex. Each point represents a single patient, with color indicating the normalized value of the corresponding feature. Features at the top had the greatest influence on model predictions. Bottom: Partial dependence plots (PDPs) for 2 top features—peak expiratory flow and height—illustrating their marginal effects on model output. Shaded areas represent 95% CIs. FVC: forced vital capacity; TLC: total lung capacity. Open in a new tab After the removal of height and weight, sex classification performance remained essentially unchanged. AUC was 0.980 (95% CI 0.973‐0.986) for the no-anthropometry version of model 3 and 0.981 (95% CI 0.974‐0.987) for the no-anthropometry version of model 4, compared with 0.981 for both primary models (Table S8 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). Discussion Our study offers an innovative perspective on leveraging machine learning to derive a single, intuitive index—lung age—from PFT data. In doing so, we extend the concept of lung age, which has historically relied on linear regression and a limited number of spirometric variables such as FEV₁ and FVC [ 1-5 , 7 , 8 , 22 , 23 , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined ]. Although traditional lung age estimates have informed clinical practice, particularly in motivating smoking cessation, their scope may be inadequate for detecting mixed respiratory disorders or capturing the complexity of progressive diseases, such as COPD and IPF [ 1 , 4 , 8 , 12 , 15 , 19 , 22 , 23 ]. By integrating additional parameters, including lung volumes and diffusing capacity, our models encapsulate broader physiologic domains, thereby providing clinicians and patients with a more complete snapshot of pulmonary function. A distinguishing innovation in our methodology lies in the incorporation of time-series features from expiratory flow-volume curves, an approach that harnesses the temporal complexity of airflow mechanics [ 24 ]. Traditional linear models often reduce such curves to a few key values (eg, peak expiratory flow or FEV₁/FVC ratio), potentially discarding clinically relevant information hidden within continuous signals [ 19 , 25 ]. The use of gradient-boosted machines enabled the model to use these subtle interactions among multiple respiratory variables, resulting in significantly enhanced predictive accuracy for both age and sex classifications. Interestingly, model 3—which relied solely on tabular PFT data—offers a near-equivalent performance while being more amenable to seamless clinical adoption, such as an online calculator for diverse health care environments. In contrast, the most advanced model (model 4), which incorporated time-series data, exhibited marginally superior accuracy and may be best suited for specialized centers capable of handling more intensive data processing. These findings encourage further research to determine whether the incremental performance gains from time-series data justify the greater computational demand, especially in patient populations with established respiratory dysfunction. Beyond its use for age estimation, these models demonstrated robust performance in sex classification, underscoring the fundamental physiological differences that exist between male and female lungs [ 26-28 ]. This high fidelity not only addresses potential gaps in demographic data encountered in large-scale epidemiological surveys but could also influence more nuanced investigations into sex-specific risks and disease trajectories [ 29-32 ]. Additionally, the extension of sex classification models to transgender populations may offer an innovative lens on how hormonal therapies or varying physiological baselines interact with lung function over time, but these questions require meticulous data collection regarding gender identity and transitions. From a clinical use perspective, precise sex classification can refine predictive models, ensuring that normative ranges and targeted interventions align more accurately with individual patient needs. This work highlights the importance of model interpretability, which is often overlooked in the rapid adoption of machine learning approaches in health care. By leveraging SHAP and partial dependence plots, we were able to offer clinicians clear insights into how specific features (eg, RV, functional residual capacity, anthropometric variables) drive each individual prediction [ 33 , 34 ]. This transparency is pivotal for patient-centered communication, as it enables clinicians to contextualize changes in lung age or sex-based predictions within underlying physiologic processes and to discuss tailored management strategies. By identifying which variables exert the greatest influence on a patient’s estimated lung age, for instance, a provider might more effectively counsel on lifestyle modifications, targeted therapies, or disease-monitoring intervals. For age predictions, SHAP analysis showed that RV as a percentage of TLC, FEV₁, and alveolar volume were among the most influential features. For sex predictions, the SHAP plots showed distinct patterns in how features, such as peak expiratory flow and height, contributed to classification outcomes for male participants versus female participants. Importantly, anthropometric ablation analyses showed only modest reductions in performance after the removal of height and weight, suggesting that body size contributes to prediction but does not fully account for model performance. Lung volumes, notably the RV and the RV/TLC ratio, increase with advancing age and may reduce the vital capacity [ 35 ]. This age-related trend aligns with the physiological principle that dynamic small airway compression caused by loss of alveolar elasticity due to aging traps gas in the lungs and elevates RV [ 36 ]. In COPD, resting pulmonary hyperinflation (RV/TLC ≥40%) correlates with older age [ 37 ]. If the increase in RV surpasses functional residual capacity, more peripheral small airways may not be ventilated, subsequently failing to participate in gas exchange and affecting the regional ventilation-perfusion ratio, which may cause the diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide to also decline with age [ 35 ]. Cross-sectional studies may overestimate or underestimate these age-related changes because of cohort and period effects, including improved measurement techniques and shifting environmental exposures. Individuals with wheezing symptoms or lower FEV₁ often exhibit higher RV/TLC, underscoring the combined role of airflow obstruction and hyperinflation [ 35 ]. Furthermore, a negative relationship between RV/TLC and diffusing capacity adjusted for lung volume (diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide/alveolar volume) points to alveolar enlargement or membrane alterations that hinder gas exchange [ 35 ]. Collectively, these findings emphasize how structural, mechanical, and biochemical factors converge to shape lung aging. The healthy cohort was skewed toward later adulthood, and age-stratified analyses showed that model error was not uniform across the age spectrum. Both models 3 and 4 tended to overestimate lung age in younger adults and underestimate lung age in older adults, with the smallest errors near the cohort’s median age. This pattern is consistent with regression to the mean in a training distribution concentrated in middle and later adulthood. Accordingly, lung age estimates from the current model should be interpreted most cautiously at the youngest and oldest ages. Future efforts to mitigate this pattern may include age-balanced sampling during model development, expansion of healthy participants at the age extremes, post hoc recalibration of predicted lung age against chronological age, and reliability flagging for underrepresented age ranges. The sex prediction models also demonstrated high accuracy, with model 4 achieving an AUC of 0.981, indicating robust discrimination between male and female pulmonary physiology. This performance may reflect known sex-related differences in lung size, airway diameter, and volume distribution. Key contributing features in sex prediction included the FEV1/FVC ratio, RV, and functional residual capacity, with demographic factors, such as height and weight, also influencing model predictions. Notably, peak expiratory flow and height showed distinct contributions to male and female classifications, aligning with known sex-based anatomical and physiological variations [ 17 , 18 , 38 ]. It would be interesting to apply the sex model within the transgender population. Nonetheless, our findings have certain limitations. The retrospective study design, coupled with the inclusion of patients undergoing PFTs for clinical indications ranging from presurgical evaluation to pre–bone marrow transplant assessment to dyspnea without respiratory disease, may limit broader generalizability. In addition, because the cohort was derived from patients undergoing clinically indicated testing rather than from a population-based healthy sample, some selection bias may remain despite the rigorous healthy cohort definition. The cohort was also predominantly Caucasian, which may limit generalizability to more diverse populations. Moreover, although lung age incorporates data from multiple physiologic dimensions, real-world deployment hinges on the availability of advanced PFT equipment, consistent procedural quality, and robust data integration infrastructures, factors that might challenge adoption in resource-limited settings [ 39 ]. Ethical and data governance considerations also arise when implementing machine learning models at scale, given the sensitive nature of electronic health record systems and potential biases introduced by incomplete or inaccurate patient information [ 40 , 41 ]. Lung age models have the potential to change how pulmonary health is assessed, communicated, and monitored. By simplifying pulmonary function test data into a single, intuitive metric, lung age may provide a tool that enhances our understanding of disease severity, improves risk communication, and motivates behavioral change, particularly in high-risk populations such as smokers. These models may also serve as objective biomarkers for early disease detection, longitudinal monitoring, and therapeutic response, enabling clinicians to track subtle physiologic changes over time that may not be readily apparent through traditional spirometric thresholds alone. Future research could expand on these results in several ways. Prospective, longitudinal studies might elucidate how lung age evolves longitudinally over multiple PFTs, particularly in conditions marked by gradual pulmonary decline, such as IPF or advanced COPD [ 42 ]. In such contexts, lung age might serve as a surrogate end point for clinical trials, offering a more personalized measure of disease progression and treatment response than single spirometric measures alone [ 43 ]. Biomarker or imaging integration represents another promising frontier; coupling lung age with genomic, proteomic, or radiomic data could uncover pathophysiologic pathways of accelerated lung aging or detect preclinical forms of lung disease [ 44 ]. Finally, as telehealth platforms and wearable respiratory sensors proliferate, there may be opportunities to develop simplified lung age offshoots—perhaps relying on robust but easily recorded flow-volume data—that can be administered remotely, expanding access to preventive care and early disease detection [ 45 ]. There is also potential in the longevity medicine field to create physiologic age scores with the help of models, such as lung age. In conclusion, this study advances the notion that machine learning can transform large volumes of PFT data into a cohesive and clinically actionable index of respiratory health. The novelty of time-series analysis, combined with interpretability frameworks, promises not only more accurate estimations of lung age but also a deeper understanding of sex-related physiological differences. Over the long term, we postulate that lung age, particularly in its more advanced configurations, could emerge as a powerful surrogate measure for disease severity and prognosis, further refining how clinicians and patients perceive and manage respiratory health. As we continue to validate lung age and sex in broader populations and more diverse clinical contexts, the prospect of integrating machine learning–driven insights into routine pulmonary care draws closer to reality, potentially revolutionizing how we monitor and intervene in chronic lung conditions. Supplementary material Multimedia Appendix 1. Supplemental material. ai-v5-e89060-s001.docx (1.3MB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/89060 Acknowledgments No generative artificial intelligence tools were used at any stage of preparation of this manuscript. Abbreviations AUC area under the curve COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease FEV1 forced expiratory volume in 1 second FVC forced vital capacity IPF idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis MAE mean absolute error PFT pulmonary function test RMSE root mean square error ROC receiver operating characteristic curve RV residual volume SHAP Shapley additive explanations TLC total lung capacity Footnotes Funding: This publication was made possible through the support of the Walter and Leonare Annenberg Career Development Award in Pulmonary Medicine (2 of 2). Data Availability: The clinical datasets generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available because they are derived from protected health information and governed by Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approval (24-001843) and Mayo Clinic data use controls. Deidentified derived data extracts and analysis code may be made available by the corresponding author on reasonable request, subject to institutional review, written approval, and execution of an appropriate data use agreement. Authors’ Contributions: Conceptualization: SAH, PWJ, ZSQ, KGL, ASL, SPA, JL, VEO Data curation: SAH, PWJ, ZSQ Formal analysis: PWJ, SPA, JL, ZSQ Funding acquisition: SAH Investigation: SAH, KGL, VEO, ASL Methodology: SAH, PWJ, JL, ZSQ, KGL, ASL, SPA, VEO Project administration: SAH Resources: SAH, PWJ, ZSQ Supervision: VEO, KGL, ASL Validation: PWJ, ZSQ, SAH Visualization: PWJ, ZSQ, SPA, JL, SAH Writing – original draft: SAH, PWJ, ZSQ, KGL, ASL, SPA, JL, VEO Writing – review & editing: SAH, PWJ, ZSQ, KGL, ASL, SPA, JL, VEO Conflicts of Interest: None declared. References 1. Hansen J. Lung age is a useful concept and calculation. Prim Care Respir J. 2010 Dec;19(4):400–401. doi: 10.4104/pcrj.2010.00074. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Hansen J. Measuring the lung age of smokers. Prim Care Respir J. 2010 Sep;19(3):286–287. doi: 10.4104/pcrj.2010.00048. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Ishida Y, Ichikawa YE, Fukakusa M, Kawatsu A, Masuda K. Novel equations better predict lung age: a retrospective analysis using two cohorts of participants with medical check-up examinations in Japan. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2015 Mar 19;25:15011. doi: 10.1038/npjpcrm.2015.11. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Morris JF, Temple W. Spirometric “lung age” estimation for motivating smoking cessation. Prev Med. 1985 Sep;14(5):655–662. doi: 10.1016/0091-7435(85)90085-4. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Newbury W, Lorimer M, Crockett A. Newer equations better predict lung age in smokers: a retrospective analysis using a cohort of randomly selected participants. Prim Care Respir J. 2012 Mar;21(1):78–84. doi: 10.4104/pcrj.2011.00094. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Toda R, Hoshino T, Kawayama T, et al. Validation of “lung age” measured by spirometry and handy electronic FEV1/FEV6 meter in pulmonary diseases. Intern Med. 2009;48(7):513–521. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.48.1781. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Yamaguchi K, Omori H, Onoue A, et al. Novel regression equations predicting lung age from varied spirometric parameters. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2012 Aug 15;183(2):108–114. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2012.06.025. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Parkes G, Greenhalgh T, Griffin M, Dent R. Effect on smoking quit rate of telling patients their lung age: the Step2quit randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008 Mar 15;336(7644):598–600. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39503.582396.25. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Chalmers JD, Goeminne P, Aliberti S, et al. The bronchiectasis severity index. An international derivation and validation study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Mar 1;189(5):576–585. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201309-1575OC. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Halpin DMG, Criner GJ, Papi A, et al. Global initiative for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive lung disease. The 2020 GOLD Science Committee report on COVID-19 and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Jan 1;203(1):24–36. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202009-3533SO. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Brusasco V, et al. Interpretative strategies for lung function tests. Eur Respir J. 2005 Nov;26(5):948–968. doi: 10.1183/09031936.05.00035205. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Raghu G, Remy-Jardin M, Myers JL, et al. Diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Sep 1;198(5):e44–e68. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201807-1255ST. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Robbie H, Daccord C, Chua F, Devaraj A. Evaluating disease severity in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Eur Respir Rev. 2017 Sep 30;26(145):170051. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0051-2017. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Diaz-Guzman E, McCarthy K, Siu A, Stoller JK. Frequency and causes of combined obstruction and restriction identified in pulmonary function tests in adults. Respir Care. 2010 Mar;55(3):310–316. Medline. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Lin H, Jiang S. Combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE): an entity different from emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis alone. J Thorac Dis. 2015 Apr;7(4):767–779. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.04.17. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Ekström M, Sundh J, Schiöler L, et al. Absolute lung size and the sex difference in breathlessness in the general population. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0190876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190876. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Harms CA, Rosenkranz S. Sex differences in pulmonary function during exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Apr;40(4):664–668. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181621325. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Heraganahally SS, Howarth T, Sorger L, Ben Saad H. Sex differences in pulmonary function parameters among Indigenous Australians with and without chronic airway disease. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0263744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263744. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Stanojevic S, Kaminsky DA, Miller MR, et al. ERS/ATS technical standard on interpretive strategies for routine lung function tests. Eur Respir J. 2022 Jul;60(1):2101499. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01499-2021. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009 Nov 10;28(25):3083–3107. doi: 10.1002/sim.3697. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Koenker RW, D’Orey V. Algorithm AS 229: computing regression quantiles. Appl Stat. 1987;36(3):383. doi: 10.2307/2347802. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Foulds J, Veldheer S, Hrabovsky S, et al. The effect of motivational lung age feedback on short-term quit rates in smokers seeking intensive group treatment: a randomized controlled pilot study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015 Aug 1;153:271–277. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.05.007. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Takagi H, Morio Y, Ishiwata T, et al. Effect of telling patients their “spirometric-lung-age” on smoking cessation in Japanese smokers. J Thorac Dis. 2017 Dec;9(12):5052–5060. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2017.11.06. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Knudson RJ, Slatin RC, Lebowitz MD, Burrows B. The maximal expiratory flow-volume curve. Normal standards, variability, and effects of age. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1976 May;113(5):587–600. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1976.113.5.587. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Topalovic M, Das N, Burgel PR, et al. Artificial intelligence outperforms pulmonologists in the interpretation of pulmonary function tests. Eur Respir J. 2019 Apr;53(4):1801660. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01660-2018. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Johannessen A, Eagan TML, Omenaas ER, Bakke PS, Gulsvik A. Socioeconomic risk factors for lung function decline in a general population. Eur Respir J. 2010 Sep;36(3):480–487. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00186509. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. LoMauro A, Aliverti A. Sex differences in respiratory function. Breathe (Sheff) 2018 Jun;14(2):131–140. doi: 10.1183/20734735.000318. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Sørheim IC, Johannessen A, Gulsvik A, Bakke PS, Silverman EK, DeMeo DL. Gender differences in COPD: are women more susceptible to smoking effects than men? Thorax. 2010 Jun;65(6):480–485. doi: 10.1136/thx.2009.122002. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Aryal S, Diaz-Guzman E, Mannino DM. Influence of sex on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease risk and treatment outcomes. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014;9:1145–1154. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S54476. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Hagmann M, Baty F, Rassouli F, Maeder MT, Brutsche MH. Gender-specific disease trajectories prior to the onset of COPD allow individualized screening and early intervention. PLoS One. 2023;18(7):e0288237. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288237. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Han MK, Murray S, Fell CD, et al. Sex differences in physiological progression of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Eur Respir J. 2008 Jun;31(6):1183–1188. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00165207. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Tsiampalis T, Panagiotakos DB. Missing-data analysis: socio-demographic, clinical and lifestyle determinants of low response rate on self-reported psychological and nutrition related multi-item instruments in the context of the ATTICA epidemiological study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Jun 8;20(1):148. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01038-3. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Hernandez-Boussard T, Bozkurt S, Ioannidis JPA, Shah NH. MINIMAR (MINimum Information for Medical AI Reporting): developing reporting standards for artificial intelligence in health care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Dec 9;27(12):2011–2015. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa088. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Molnar C. Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide for Making Black Box Models Explainable. 2th. Christoph Molnar; 2022. [20-05-2026]. https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/ URL. Accessed. [ Google Scholar ] 35. Harding R, Pinkerton KE. In: Encyclopedia of Respiratory Medicine. Laurent GJ, Shapiro SD, editors. Academic Press; 2006. Lung anatomy (including the aging lung) pp. 606–613. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Martinez CH, Diaz AA, Meldrum C, et al. Age and small airway imaging abnormalities in subjects with and without airflow obstruction in SPIROMICS. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Feb 15;195(4):464–472. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201604-0871OC. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Shin TR, Oh YM, Park JH, et al. The prognostic value of residual volume/total lung capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Oct;30(10):1459–1465. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.10.1459. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Ekström M, Schiöler L, Grønseth R, et al. Absolute values of lung function explain the sex difference in breathlessness in the general population. Eur Respir J. 2017 May;49(5):1602047. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02047-2016. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Mortimer KM, Fallot A, Balmes JR, Tager IB. Evaluating the use of a portable spirometer in a study of pediatric asthma. Chest. 2003 Jun;123(6):1899–1907. doi: 10.1378/chest.123.6.1899. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Mingo HC. In: Multisector Insights in Healthcare, Social Sciences, Society, and Technology. Burrell DN, editor. IGI Global; 2024. The emerging cybersecurity challenges with artificial intelligence; pp. 163–185. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Rawat DB, Doku R, Garuba M. Cybersecurity in big data era: from securing big data to data-driven security. IEEE Trans Serv Comput. 2021;14(6):2055–2072. doi: 10.1109/TSC.2019.2907247. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Jo YS, Kim SK, Park SJ, et al. Longitudinal change of FEV1 and inspiratory capacity: clinical implication and relevance to exacerbation risk in patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019;14:361–369. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S189384. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Steen VD, Medsger TA., Jr Severe organ involvement in systemic sclerosis with diffuse scleroderma. Arthritis Rheum. 2000 Nov;43(11):2437–2444. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200011)43:11<2437::AID-ANR10>3.0.CO;2-U. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. Hatabu H, Hunninghake GM, Richeldi L, et al. Interstitial lung abnormalities detected incidentally on CT: a position paper from the Fleischner Society. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Jul;8(7):726–737. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30168-5. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 45. Odisho AY, Liu AW, Maiorano AR, et al. Design and implementation of a digital health home spirometry intervention for remote monitoring of lung transplant function. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Jun;42(6):828–837. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2023.01.010. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Multimedia Appendix 1. Supplemental material. ai-v5-e89060-s001.docx (1.3MB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/89060 Articles from JMIR AI are provided here courtesy of JMIR Publications Inc. ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (2.1 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Sex Differences in Effects of Exercise on Physical Function in Aging: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis#947896
• The Association Between Lung Hyperinflation and Coronary Artery Disease in Smokers#1145853
• Abstracts from Specialized Centers of Research Excellence (SCORE) on Sex Differences 2025 annual meeting.#312447
• Best Practices for Using Biological Data in Psychological Research#1001633
• Serum cortisol as a predictor of major adverse pulmonary event in emergency department acutely dyspneic patients#955377