Abstract
Background and aim Epidemiological studies of lung function may discard one-third to one-half of participants due to spirometry measures deemed “low quality” using criteria adapted from clinical practice. We aimed to define new spirometry quality control (QC) criteria that optimise the signal-to-noise ratio in epidemiological studies of lung function.
Material and methods We proposed a genetic risk score (GRS) informed strategy to categorize spirometer blows according to quality criteria. We constructed three GRSs comprised of SNPs associated with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and the ratio of FEV1 to FVC (FEV1/FVC) in individuals from non-UK Biobank cohorts included in prior genome-wide association studies (GWAS). In the UK Biobank, we applied a step-wise testing of the GRS association across groups of spirometry blows stratified by acceptability flags to rank the blow quality. To reassess the QC criteria, we compared the genetic association results between analyses including different acceptability flags and applying different repeatability thresholds for spirometry measurements to determine the trade-off between sample size and measurement error.
Results We found that including blows previously excluded for cough, hesitation, excessive time to peak flow, or inadequate terminal plateau, and applying a repeatability threshold of 250ml, would maximise the statistical power for GWAS and retain acceptable precision in the UK Biobank. This approach allowed the inclusion of 29% more participants compared to the strictest ATS/ERS guidelines.
Conclusion Our findings demonstrate the utility of GRS-informed QC to maximise the power of epidemiological studies for lung function traits.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Wellcome Trust Discovery Award (WT225221/Z/22/Z), NIHR Senior Investigator Award (NIHR201371) and the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
UK Biobank has approval from the North West Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee (MREC) as a Research Tissue Bank (RTB) approval. This work was approved under project 648 in UK Biobank.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
