Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major chronic disease with high global mortality, and capnography offers a noninvasive method for testing lungs function under natural breathing. Reported here is the best paradigm for COPD diagnosis and airflow obstruction severity assessment based on capnography as achieved by comparing the performance of five machine learning methods. In this study, 1007 subjects underwent capnography and pulmonary function tests, then segment-fitted capnography was used to extract quantitative features. Using a hybrid scoring strategy to identify the head features, XGBoost performed the best, with accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score of 90.08%, 90.33%, 90.08%, and 89.72%, respectively. This work shows for the first time the feasibility of using capnography to evaluate ventilation dysfunction in COPD patients. The proposed XGBoost-based method offers support to clinicians for assessing patients’ ventilatory function by capnography, which has considerable potential as an alternative to traditional pulmonary function tests for respiratory diseases.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory disease characterized by irreversible airflow limitation,1 and as the third leading cause of death worldwide, COPD is increasingly being recognized as a public health concern with high morbidity and mortality.2 To slow the progression and reduce flareups of this disease, early diagnosis including screening and grading is of great importance.

The current gold standard for detecting COPD is spirometry. According to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lungs Disease (GOLD) criteria,3 COPD is considered when the post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC (the ratio of forced expiratory volume to forced vital capacity) is less than 70%, and airflow obstruction severity is defined according to GOLD grades based on FEV1% predicted (FEV1%pred). However, spirometry can only be used under strict criteria and with patient cooperation,4 so it is difficult to use this diagnosis method with unconscious patients, children, and those who are suffering from severe respiratory conditions. The ensuing low-quality results are unacceptable and increase the risk of inappropriate treatment, so there is an urgent need for effective, noninvasive, and effort-independent tools for evaluating pulmonary functions.

In recent years, capnography (Capno) has received widespread attention because of its monitoring ability during natural breathing and it being easier to perform than conventional pulmonary function tests (PFTs). Capno can be used to describe the CO2 concentration or partial pressure in the expiratory phase as a function of time or exhaled air volume, giving additional information about the ventilator perfusion dynamics of the lungs.

Quantitative features derived from Capno are recognized as effective indicators for assessing respiratory functions,5 and spirometry parameters such as FEV1/FVC and FEV1%pred are crucial for diagnosing COPD and evaluating the ventilatory function of patients. Related studies to date have mostly been focused on dataset construction based on volumetric capnography (VCap) or time-based capnography (TCap) individually to investigate their relationships with conventional pulmonary function parameters. Via path analyses, Kellerer et al. identified four key parameters of VCap (slope in phase 3, ratio of slopes in phases 3 and 2, volume in phase 2, and area/volume ratio in phase 3) that reflect various aspects of the lungs, including malignant inflation, overall ventilatory impairment, bronchoconstriction, and ventilated lungs volume.6 Additionally, Pertzov et al. leveraged the waveform characteristics of TCap to establish an FEV1 regression model that can be used to assess the severity of airway obstruction in patients with lungs diseases.7 Those studies collectively demonstrate the value of Capno parameters in discriminating pulmonary functions comparable to spirometry. Moreover, Capno provides a distinct perspective for assessing pulmonary functions, allowing for standards independent of such conventional indicators as FEV1/FVC and FEV1%pred.

As an effective computational analysis tool, machine learning (ML) is now used widely in respiratory medicine.8 Based on continuous Capno monitoring, some scholars have used ML models such as convolutional neural networks9 and quadratic discriminant analysis10 and have input signals directly into these models. This has demonstrated the efficacy of Capno in tasks such as discriminating between COPD-Normal and COPD-CHF patients,11–13 and the results indicate that as an alternative or complementary tool for personalized detection and treatment of respiratory diseases, Capno has significant potential.

However, despite advances, Capno has not yet reached its full potential in the appropriate grading of COPD severity. Previous related studies were mostly focused on discriminating between COPD and other conditions, which can only indicate the presence of COPD but cannot provide information for airflow obstruction assessment.14 Also, there is still a lack of a consensus on the optimal approach to taking full advantage of Capno. Only a few parameters of TCap or VCap are considered, and most investigators analyze the correlation of either one of them with the spirometry parameter,15,16 which ignores the value of Capno as an independent factor in the diagnosis of COPD.

Our aim is to investigate the pivotal role of quantitative features derived from Capno in the assessment of respiratory functions. In this work as shown in Fig. 1, five different classification models for assessing airflow obstruction are evaluated. TCap and VCap are analyzed separately, and a subset including abundant characteristics is also constructed. Furthermore, a hybrid feature-selection scoring strategy is formulated to identify the significant features for improved classifier performance. Unlike conventional PFTs, Capno may be used for the diagnosis of COPD and the grading of airflow obstruction in cases where the test criteria cannot be met. These advancements are expected to be applied in clinical practice, thereby enhancing the outcomes of patients in the field of respiratory healthcare.

FIG. 1.

Overview of feature selection and disease classification.

FIG. 1.

Overview of feature selection and disease classification.

Close modal

Capno consists of TCap and VCap, which imply the process of pulmonary ventilation and gas exchange from two aspects. Figure 2 shows the curves of TCap and VCap in one respiratory cycle. TCap can be divided into four phases: phase I represents the CO2-free gas from the airways (anatomical and apparatus dead space); phase II is rapidly S-shaped because of the mixing of dead-space gas with alveolar gas; phase III is an alveolar plateau representing CO2-rich gas from the alveolar; phase IV represents the concentration of CO2 dropping sharply to form the descending limb at the end of expiration. VCap can be divided into three phases: phase I is the baseline, representing the CO2-free gas from the dead space in the early exhalation; phase II is the ascending branch, where dead-space and alveolar gas are mixed and exhaled, and CO2 concentration increases; phase III is the plateau, which is almost horizontal in normal conditions with a high concentration of CO2. TCap and VCap yield similar morphology and physiological mechanisms. Capno approximates an asymmetrical sigmoid curve in the expiratory phase with CO2 elimination.

FIG. 2.

Capnography curves: (a) time-based capnography (TCap) in respiratory cycle; (b) volumetric capnography (VCap) in exhalation stage.

FIG. 2.

Capnography curves: (a) time-based capnography (TCap) in respiratory cycle; (b) volumetric capnography (VCap) in exhalation stage.

Close modal
We accurately characterize the original signal and generate individual templates via polynomial fitting. Inspired by Tusman et al.17 modeling VCap as the sum of a constant and two logistic curves and Motta-Ribeiro et al.18 introducing a new four-parameter model for VCap description to enhance data fitting and estimate dead space, we use polynomials for quantitative analysis of Capno. Crucial in disease diagnosis, this approach involves fitting the target curve using both a seven-parameter model and a four-parameter model, with the CO2 concentration of 50% serving as the boundary. We have
(1)
where c is the independent variable, and Xi (i = 1, 2) represents the parameter vectors X1 = [x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7] in 0%–50% CO2 concentration and X2 = [x8, x9, x10, x11] in 50% CO2 concentration until the end of expiration. F0, F1, F2, and F3are described as follows:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The ML algorithm adds a regular term to the underlying Gauss–Newton method, accelerating the convergence rate. Having defined the components of the residual vector, the aim is to minimize the following function:
(6)
(7)
The estimation of unknown coefficients of curve fitting can be decomposed into the following equation:
(8)
A series of least-squares problems is used to replace the nonlinear least-squares and finally converge to the solution of the original nonlinear problem. The stop criterion is an absolute value of the relative change in the cost function of less than 10−6 or a maximum of 400 iterations. The segmented function approximation exhibits low bias and dispersions, facilitating our subsequent feature extractions.

Deriving meaningful features from original Capno is crucial for airflow obstruction assessment in patients with COPD. However, the lack of consensus on quantitative analysis methods for Capno (TCap or VCap) has limited the understanding of curves. In this study, the specific features that can characterize the complete Capno were extracted from the chaotic information to perform quantitative analyses, including demographic information, morphological features (such as slope, angle, and the area under the curve), and physiological features (such as dead-space volume, expiratory rate, and tidal volume) in TCap and VCap within an effective respiratory cycle. Also, time–frequency domain analysis was performed on the signals (such as segmented wavelet decomposition, and short-time Fourier transform). In practice, the continuous features were further processed by taking logarithms and variance distributions. In total, 110 features were extracted from the raw data.

The hybrid feature-selection scoring strategy calculates feature scores using a combination of filter, wrapper, and embedded methods. Kernel density estimation is used to analyze data distribution and filter out irrelevant features. Then, five independent selectors assign scores to each feature: Pearson correlation coefficient, chi-square test, recursive feature elimination with logistic regression, Lasso regression, and decision tree analysis; the five selectors assign scores to each feature separately, and the scoring process is independent. The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the correlation between variables; we exclude highly correlated features and keep only those with low redundancy to reduce data complexity. In the second selector, we use the chi-square test to remove irrelevant features; the head features receive high scores, while the tail features receive low scores, in descending order. To select the most important features for the training process, we use logistic regression with recursive feature elimination to construct feature sets. We then use Lasso to force the feature weight to zero and calculate the node impurities in the decision tree to evaluate feature importance. The sum of all the selectors’ scores is expressed as
(9)

The features were ranked in descending order by score, with a higher score indicating greater suitability. We set a threshold of 4 based on model performance, and we selected the features above that threshold as the final subset, obtaining 26 features to assess ventilation dysfunction in COPD patients. Table I summarizes the selected features.

TABLE I.

Overview of selected features.

Feature nameSourceDescription
Weight EMR ⋯ 
Ratio_VM5075_VT VCap Ratio of 50%–75% exhaled CO2 concentration to tidal volume 
Ratio_s3s2 VCap Ratio of phase III and phase II 
Flow_std TCap Standard deviation of flow 
Angle VCap Angle between phase II and phase III 
Age TCap ⋯ 
Valv VCap Alveolar tidal volume 
V_std VCap Standard deviation of expiratory volume 
V_min VCap Minimum of expiratory volume 
10 VT_R VCap Tidal volume 
11 VCO2_II VCap Volume of CO2 volume in phase II 
12 HP1_Activity TCap Activity of phase II 
13 BMI EMR ⋯ 
14 Slop_III_log VCap Logarithm of Slop_III 
15 Slop_III VCap Slope of phase III 
16 Ratio_VM2550_VT VCap Ratio of 25%–50% exhaled CO2 concentration to tidal volume 
17 Ratio_s3s2_log VCap Logarithm of Ratio_s3s2_log 
18 Height EMR ⋯ 
19 Gender EMR ⋯ 
20 Flow_var TCap Variance of flow 
21 Vte VCap Tidal elimination volume 
22 VDaw VCap Volume of anatomic dead space 
23 VDW VCap Volume of Wolff dead cavity 
24 VDT VCap Volume of threshold dead cavity 
25 HP2_Activity TCap Activity of phase III 
26 EFFi VCap Efficiency index 
Feature nameSourceDescription
Weight EMR ⋯ 
Ratio_VM5075_VT VCap Ratio of 50%–75% exhaled CO2 concentration to tidal volume 
Ratio_s3s2 VCap Ratio of phase III and phase II 
Flow_std TCap Standard deviation of flow 
Angle VCap Angle between phase II and phase III 
Age TCap ⋯ 
Valv VCap Alveolar tidal volume 
V_std VCap Standard deviation of expiratory volume 
V_min VCap Minimum of expiratory volume 
10 VT_R VCap Tidal volume 
11 VCO2_II VCap Volume of CO2 volume in phase II 
12 HP1_Activity TCap Activity of phase II 
13 BMI EMR ⋯ 
14 Slop_III_log VCap Logarithm of Slop_III 
15 Slop_III VCap Slope of phase III 
16 Ratio_VM2550_VT VCap Ratio of 25%–50% exhaled CO2 concentration to tidal volume 
17 Ratio_s3s2_log VCap Logarithm of Ratio_s3s2_log 
18 Height EMR ⋯ 
19 Gender EMR ⋯ 
20 Flow_var TCap Variance of flow 
21 Vte VCap Tidal elimination volume 
22 VDaw VCap Volume of anatomic dead space 
23 VDW VCap Volume of Wolff dead cavity 
24 VDT VCap Volume of threshold dead cavity 
25 HP2_Activity TCap Activity of phase III 
26 EFFi VCap Efficiency index 

The selected features can be categorized into three main groups: demographic features, VCap features, and TCap features. Demographic features including weight, age, BMI, height, and gender provide essential background information about the patients, being closely related to lungs function and COPD risk. VCap features such as the ratio of exhaled CO2 concentrations (Ratio_VM5075_VT, Ratio_VM2550_VT), alveolar tidal volume (Valv), standard deviation and minimum of expiratory volume (V_std, V_min), tidal volume (VT_R), volume of CO2 in phase II (VCO2_II), and various dead-space volumes (VDaw, VDW, VDT) reflect changes in CO2 concentration, ventilation efficiency, and lungs volume; these features are crucial for assessing ventilation-perfusion efficiency and identifying airway obstruction. TCap features including the standard deviation and variance of flow (Flow_std, Flow_var), the angle between phases II and III (Angle), and the activity levels during phases II and III (HP1_Activity, HP2_Activity) capture the dynamic changes in airflow and CO2 concentration during the respiratory cycle. Higher variability and instability in airflow indicate fluctuating airway resistance and lungs compliance, which are characteristic of COPD. By combining these features, we can comprehensively assess COPD severity, enhance the model’s predictive performance, and improve clinical interpretability.

This study involved a comprehensive selection of classic ML algorithms as benchmark models, i.e., logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost).19–23 These algorithms represent diverse learning paradigms and modeling approaches, encompassing aspects of supervised learning, ensemble learning, and probabilistic modeling. The primary objective was to rigorously evaluate their efficacy in the diagnosis and classification of COPD. LR is a widely used linear model for classification, SVM excels in classification by finding the optimal hyperplane in high-dimensional space, and KNN can perform classification based on the distance between instances. RF can enhance performance by ensemble learning with multiple decision trees, while XGBoost can construct a powerful ensemble model iteratively. Their selection was based on their distinct advantages: interpretability (LR), robustness in high-dimensional spaces (SVM), simplicity and effectiveness in capturing local patterns (KNN), ensemble robustness (RF), and advanced regularization with computational efficiency (XGBoost). These algorithms were collectively applied to the baseline models in this study, providing a performance benchmark for the proposed methods. In the results analysis, their performance on different tasks and datasets was assessed to comprehensively evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

We use accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score to evaluate the performance of the models thoroughly. Accuracy is the rate at which all samples are correctly classified, and its formula is
(10)
Precision is the rate at which positive samples are correctly classified among positive predictions, and its formula is
(11)
Recall is the rate at which positive samples are correctly classified among samples that are truly positive, and its formula is
(12)
Here, TP (true positive) is the number of correctly classified positive samples, FP (false positive) is the number of incorrectly classified negative samples, TN (true negative) is the number of correctly classified negative samples, and FN (false negative) is the number of incorrectly classified positive samples.
Regarding the models’ composite performance, we use the F1 score for inter-indicator trade-offs and calculate it similarly for each task, i.e.,
(13)

In this study, patients with respiratory diseases who received treatment in the pneumology department with China–Japan Friendship Hospital approval over four months were selected as research subjects. Participants included but were not limited to those with respiratory diseases such as COPD, allergic asthma, interstitial lungs disease, and pulmonary fibrosis and those for preoperative screening. All subjects underwent Capno tracing and then accepted PFTs by a Masterscreen multifunctional pulmonary function instrument (JEGER, Germany); the standard results from JEGER were recorded as labels.

In total, 1007 participants comprising 535 males and 472 females completed the experiment, as listed in Table II. All participants provided written informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Approximately 25% of these participants presented normal pulmonary functions, while the remaining individuals exhibited pulmonary dysfunction with varying degrees, such as small-airway obstruction, restrictive ventilation impairment, and reduced spirometry. Subjects with abnormal pulmonary functions underwent bronchodilator inhalation before subsequent PFTs, strictly adhering to clinical norms. Records not meeting the specified criteria were excluded.

TABLE II.

Description of subjects.

Total group (n = 1007)Normal (n = 279)COPD (n = 148)
Sex male, n(%) 535(53.1) 132 102 
Sex female, n(%) 472(46.9) 147 46 
Age, mean ± SD 48 ± 38 51 ± 13 58 ± 10 
Height (cm), mean ± SD 165.45 ± 8.58 166.00 ± 8.12 166.27 ± 9.20 
Weight (kg), mean ± SD 68.58 ± 14.00 70.92 ± 16.60 68.71 ± 12.32 
FEV1 (l) 2.52 ± 0.86 3.11 ± 0.67 1.85 ± 0.87 
FVC (l) 3.48 ± 1.00 3.85 ± 0.85 3.33 ± 1.16 
FEV1/FVC (%) 71.91 ± 12.70 81.05 ± 4.40 53.98 ± 12.18 
Total group (n = 1007)Normal (n = 279)COPD (n = 148)
Sex male, n(%) 535(53.1) 132 102 
Sex female, n(%) 472(46.9) 147 46 
Age, mean ± SD 48 ± 38 51 ± 13 58 ± 10 
Height (cm), mean ± SD 165.45 ± 8.58 166.00 ± 8.12 166.27 ± 9.20 
Weight (kg), mean ± SD 68.58 ± 14.00 70.92 ± 16.60 68.71 ± 12.32 
FEV1 (l) 2.52 ± 0.86 3.11 ± 0.67 1.85 ± 0.87 
FVC (l) 3.48 ± 1.00 3.85 ± 0.85 3.33 ± 1.16 
FEV1/FVC (%) 71.91 ± 12.70 81.05 ± 4.40 53.98 ± 12.18 

Capno was repeated on multiple occasions to ensure both validity and consistency. In total, 2983 breathing cycles were recorded, and patients were categorized based on established clinical practice. Following the GOLD guidelines, patients with COPD were classified into four levels (mild, moderate, severe, and very severe) based on the severity of airflow obstruction. The comprehensive exploration of the diagnostic value of Capno in COPD focused on the performance metrics for COPD detection and the grading of airflow obstruction in COPD patients. Ultimately, 1207 recordings were collected from both COPD (148) and normal subjects (279) and incorporated into the analysis. Ethical approval for data collection was obtained from committees in strict adherence to local regulations, and all participants provided written informed consent.

As shown in Fig. 3, the Capno of normal subjects and COPD patients shows different patterns, such as the slope of the ascending phase and its angle to the plateau phase. The same feature extraction was used for each recording, and the hybrid feature-selection scoring strategy was performed before input to the classifiers.

FIG. 3.

Capnography in healthy subjects and COPD patients: (a) VCap in normal subject; (b) TCap in normal subject; (c) VCap in COPD patient; (d) TCap in COPD patient.

FIG. 3.

Capnography in healthy subjects and COPD patients: (a) VCap in normal subject; (b) TCap in normal subject; (c) VCap in COPD patient; (d) TCap in COPD patient.

Close modal

Here, we compare the performances of the five ML models (LR, SVM, KNN, RF, and XGBoost) in assessing ventilatory function. For each model, the optimal combination of hyperparameters was found using grid search. The performances of the models on the test set are given in Table III, and as can be seen, XGBoost significantly outperforms the other ML models in discriminating airflow obstruction, achieving accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score of 90.08%, 90.33%, 90.08%, and 89.72%, respectively. Figure 4 shows the XGBoost confusion matrix, demonstrating that its ability to discriminate between moderate and severe airflow obstruction in COPD patients is slightly higher than its ability to detect mild and very severe patients.

TABLE III.

Performance comparison of different machine learning (ML) algorithms in airflow obstruction. Boldface denotes the beast performance.

ModelAccuracy (%)Precision (%)Recall (%)F1 (%)
LR 73.16 69.62 73.16 68.70 
SVM 67.93 75.02 69.93 69.92 
KNN 69.73 67.50 72.24 66.83 
RF 74.22 72.87 73.07 72.36 
XGBoost 90.08 90.33 90.08 89.72 
ModelAccuracy (%)Precision (%)Recall (%)F1 (%)
LR 73.16 69.62 73.16 68.70 
SVM 67.93 75.02 69.93 69.92 
KNN 69.73 67.50 72.24 66.83 
RF 74.22 72.87 73.07 72.36 
XGBoost 90.08 90.33 90.08 89.72 
FIG. 4.

Confusion matrix of XGBoost in ventilation dysfunction assessment.

FIG. 4.

Confusion matrix of XGBoost in ventilation dysfunction assessment.

Close modal

We also analyze the performance of each model in COPD diagnosis as given in Table IV, and as can be seen, XGBoost remains significantly superior to the other algorithms. In tenfold cross-validation, XGBoost achieved an AUC of 0.96 on the test set (Fig. 5). XGBoost outperformed the other models because of its robust ensemble learning capabilities and efficient handling of complex data relationships. Its ability to capture nonlinear interactions and perform well with imbalanced datasets likely contributed to its superior performance in diagnosing and assessing COPD. In contrast, models such as SVM and KNN may have struggled with the complexity and high dimensionality of the features extracted from Capno.

TABLE IV.

Performance comparison of different ML algorithms in COPD diagnosis. Boldface denotes the beast performance.

ModelAccuracy (%)Precision (%)Recall (%)F1 (%)
LR 82.68 80.97 65.95 75.94 
SVM 84.30 76.74 78.57 77.65 
KNN 82.60 83.80 61.90 71.08 
RF 84.34 82.92 69.53 75.47 
XGBoost 95.00 97.37 88.10 92.50 
ModelAccuracy (%)Precision (%)Recall (%)F1 (%)
LR 82.68 80.97 65.95 75.94 
SVM 84.30 76.74 78.57 77.65 
KNN 82.60 83.80 61.90 71.08 
RF 84.34 82.92 69.53 75.47 
XGBoost 95.00 97.37 88.10 92.50 
FIG. 5.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for XGBoost in COPD diagnosis.

FIG. 5.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for XGBoost in COPD diagnosis.

Close modal

Selecting quantitative features in Capno is a long-standing research focus. To validate the enhancement effect of the hybrid feature-selection scoring strategy, we compare the results of models using this strategy with those of the basic models. As shown in Fig. 6, significant performance improvements are achieved in both tasks when the hybrid scoring strategy is used to discriminate between normal-COPD and ventilatory function assessment in COPD patients. We set thresholds for the selection of representative head features. Specifically, when using all 26 selected features, XGBoost achieved the best performance. Compared to the F1 scores of 85.08% in COPD detection and 83.52% in airflow obstruction assessment without feature selection, our proposed feature selection strategy gives an approximate 6% improvement in overall performance.

FIG. 6.

Performance comparison of proposed hybrid feature-selection scoring strategy. Task1—diagnosis of COPD; Task2—assessment of ventilation dysfunction.

FIG. 6.

Performance comparison of proposed hybrid feature-selection scoring strategy. Task1—diagnosis of COPD; Task2—assessment of ventilation dysfunction.

Close modal

We investigate the application of Capno in the assessment of COPD, focusing on two curves: VCap and TCap. With the aim of exploring the performance of different data sources in the diagnosis of COPD and the assessment of ventilatory function, we evaluate the use of VCap and TCap individually and in combination. Table V indicates that in airflow obstruction assessment, using VCap alone is better than using TCap alone. In particular, when VCap and TCap are used in combination, the model shows a more significant performance advantage.

TABLE V.

Performance comparison of different datasets. Boldface denotes the beast performance.

DatasetsCOPD diagnosisCOPD ventilation dysfunction assessment
Accuracy (%)Precision (%)Recall (%)F1 score (%)Accuracy (%)Precision (%)Recall (%)F1 score (%)
VCap 90.47 89.08 82.86 85.79 85.42 85.37 83.24 84.40 
TCap 86.66 85.98 74.05 79.42 81.94 81.46 80.46 84.40 
Capno 95.00 97.37 88.10 92.50 90.08 90.33 90.08 89.72 
DatasetsCOPD diagnosisCOPD ventilation dysfunction assessment
Accuracy (%)Precision (%)Recall (%)F1 score (%)Accuracy (%)Precision (%)Recall (%)F1 score (%)
VCap 90.47 89.08 82.86 85.79 85.42 85.37 83.24 84.40 
TCap 86.66 85.98 74.05 79.42 81.94 81.46 80.46 84.40 
Capno 95.00 97.37 88.10 92.50 90.08 90.33 90.08 89.72 

In this study, we used five different ML models for assessing lungs ventilation function, and XGBoost excelled in intricate ventilation function assessment and straightforward COPD diagnosis. We attribute XGBoost’s superior performance to its robust capabilities in ensemble learning and efficient fitting of complex data relationships. Physiologically, XGBoost is adept at capturing the nonlinear relationships between physiological features in Capno, and given the influence of multiple physiological factors on lungs ventilation function, this flexibility is crucial. Moreover, discrepancies in model performance were observed in assessing airflow obstruction in COPD patients; these stem from the relatively few samples for very severe patients in the available dataset. Also, it was noted that for patients with mild ventilation disorders, their Capno morphology closely resembled that of normal individuals, leading to a propensity for misclassification. We emphasize the utilization of the complete Capno, encompassing TCAP and VCap. Results from VCap indicate that Capno exhibits significant advantages in multiple aspects when integrating VCap and TCap features compared to conventional single-feature analysis. This integration furnishes volumetric information regarding patient ventilation and perfusion, while TCap contributes temporal information concerning the respiratory cycle and gas exchange. A complementary relationship exists between VCap and TCap, and the synergistic application of these two signals aids in detecting abnormalities such as hypoventilation and dead-space ventilation.

Many researchers have used physiological signals such as lungs sounds, computed tomography (CT), digital oximetry biomarkers, and nighttime features to avoid misdiagnosis due to PFT failures.24–27 Although those researchers tried to apply ML to the diagnosis or severity grading of COPD, agreement is yet to be reached. Table VI compares our work against related studies; we considered the F1 score as an evaluation indicator and included only those who completed the assessment of ventilatory function. Spina et al.27 reported a multi-sensor detection system that modeled nighttime topics to discriminate healthy subjects from those with COPD; however, even though multiple classification signals were involved in the model’s pre-training, the final model’s performance was still unsatisfactory, achieving an F1 score of 0.78 for classification in the four COPD grades. Levy et al.26 used an RF classifier to diagnose COPD based on digital oximetry biomarkers and polysomnography; the F1 score for the RF classifier on the test set was 0.89, similar to our work, but acquiring oximetry biomarkers for sleep polysomnography still requires patient cooperation and adequate medical conditions.

TABLE VI.

Comparison with related work.

StudySubjects (n)Source of featuresModelaF1 score
Spina et al.27  Healthy: 66 Nighttime features LDA 0.69 
COPD: 66 
Levy et al.26  Non-COPD: 280 SpO2 biomarkers and PSG LR, RF 0.89 
COPD: 70 
Our work Healthy: 279 Capnography LR, SVM, KNN, RF, XGBoost 0.90b 
COPD: 148 
StudySubjects (n)Source of featuresModelaF1 score
Spina et al.27  Healthy: 66 Nighttime features LDA 0.69 
COPD: 66 
Levy et al.26  Non-COPD: 280 SpO2 biomarkers and PSG LR, RF 0.89 
COPD: 70 
Our work Healthy: 279 Capnography LR, SVM, KNN, RF, XGBoost 0.90b 
COPD: 148 
a

Bold font indicates the best model.

b

The actual F1 score in our work was 89.72%, but an approximation is made here to harmonize the metric.

Our work has shown that Capno appears to be an objective and valid direct description of lungs function. The proposed method may help clinicians to understand the ventilatory function of patients who are unable to perform PFTs. Compared to previous methods, the results of this study improve the understanding of Capno in the diagnosis and classification of COPD, outperforming other physiological information. This work indicates that Capno combined with an ML model such as XGBoost can effectively diagnose and assess COPD. This approach offers a noninvasive and cost-effective alternative to traditional PFTs, making it suitable for use in various clinical settings including primary healthcare and remote monitoring. However, potential barriers such as the need for standardized protocols, training for healthcare providers, and integration with existing healthcare systems must be addressed in order to facilitate widespread adoption.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first scientific effort to demonstrate the feasibility of extracting features from Capno in order to evaluate airflow obstruction severity in patients with COPD. The results presented herein confirm the reliability of Capno as a cost-effective and portable method for COPD management, and as a single indicator, Capno can play a role in the initial classification of COPD. Compared with other conventional supervised ML algorithms, XGBoost was validated as a helpful tool for airflow obstruction assessment in COPD, and the proposed feature-selection strategy exhibited favorable performance in model learning, improving the classification accuracy. XGBoost has good interpretability and offers physicians convenient understanding of Capno.

In conclusion, the method proposed herein can accurately assess the severity of patients with COPD, thereby promoting the large-scale screening of COPD in primary healthcare institutions. These findings offer a practical guide for classifying COPD based on Capno using ML. Furthermore, Capno as an alternative to traditional lungs function is expected to provide decision support in diagnosing COPD.

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 62331025, 62071451, and U21A20447), the National Key Research and Development Project (Grant No. 2021YFC3002204), the Special Equipment Scientific Research Key Project (Grant No. LB2020LA060003), and the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (Grant No. 2019-I2M-5-019).

The author has no conflicts to disclose.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

1.
Celli
BR
,
MacNee
W
,
Agusti
A
,
Anzueto
A
,
Berg
B
,
Buist
AS
,
Calverley
PM
,
Chavannes
N
,
Dillard
T
,
Fahy
B
, et al.
Standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COPD: A summary of the ATS/ERS position paper
.
Eur. Respir. J.
2004
;
23
(
6
):
932
-
946
.
2.
Lareau
SC
,
Fahy
B
,
Meek
P
,
Wang
A
.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
2019
;
199
(
1
):
P1
-
P2
.
3.
Venkatesan
P
.
Gold COPD report: 2023 update
.
Lancet Respir Med
2023
;
11
(
1
):
18
.
4.
Schermer
T
,
Jacobs
J
,
Chavannes
N
,
Hartman
J
,
Folgering
H
,
Bottema
B
,
van Weel
C
.
Validity of spirometric testing in a general practice population of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
.
Thorax
2003
;
58
(
10
):
861
-
866
.
5.
Jaffe
MB
.
Using the features of the time and volumetric capnogram for classification and prediction
.
J Clin Monit Comput
2017
;
31
(
1
):
19
-
41
.
6.
Kellerer
C
,
Schneider
A
,
Klütsch
K
,
Husemann
K
,
Sorichter
S
,
Jörres
R
.
Correspondence between capnovolumetric and conventional lung function parameters in the diagnosis of obstructive airway diseases
.
Respiration
2020
;
99
(
5
):
389
-
397
.
7.
Pertzov
B
,
Ronen
M
,
Rosengarten
D
,
Shitenberg
D
,
Heching
M
,
Shostak
Y
,
Kramer
MR
.
Use of capnography for prediction of obstruction severity in non-intubated COPD and asthma patients
.
Respir Res
2021
;
22
(
1
):
154
.
8.
Kaplan
A
,
Cao
H
,
FitzGerald
JM
,
Iannotti
N
,
Yang
E
,
Kocks
JW
,
Kostikas
K
,
Price
D
,
Reddel
HK
,
Tsiligianni
I
, et al.
Artificial intelligence/machine learning in respiratory medicine and potential role in asthma and COPD diagnosis
.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract
2021
;
9
(
6
):
2255
-
2261
.
9.
Bhagya
D
,
Suchetha
M
.
A 1-D deformable convolutional neural network for the quantitative analysis of capnographic sensor
.
IEEE Sens J
2021
;
21
(
5
):
6672
-
6678
.
10.
Mieloszyk
RJ
,
Verghese
GC
,
Deitch
K
,
Cooney
B
,
Khalid
A
,
Mirre-González
MA
,
Heldt
T
,
Krauss
BS
.
Automated quantitative analysis of capnogram shape for COPD–normal and COPD–CHF classification
.
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng
2014
;
61
(
12
):
2882
-
2890
.
11.
Bhagya
D
,
Manikandan
S
.
Speed of sound-based capnographic sensor with second-generation CNN for automated classification of cardiorespiratory abnormalities
.
IEEE Sens. J.
2019
;
19
(
19
):
8887
-
8894
.
12.
Ponomareva
I
,
Abrosimov
V
,
Subbotin
S
,
Byalovskiy
Y
.
Volumetric capnography in the assessment of distal airway function in patients with asthma
.
Eur Respir Soc
;
2019
:
PA5036
.
13.
Brown
RH
,
Brooker
A
,
Wise
RA
,
Reynolds
C
,
Loccioni
C
,
Russo
A
,
Risby
TH
.
Forced expiratory capnography and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
.
J Breath Res
2013
;
7
(
1
):
017108
.
14.
Romero
P
,
Lucangelo
U
,
Lopez Aguilar
J
,
Fernandez
R
,
Blanch
L
.
Physiologically based indices of volumetric capnography in patients receiving mechanical ventilation
.
Eur Respir J
1997
;
10
(
6
):
1309
-
1315
.
15.
Norweg
AM
,
Skamai
A
,
Kwon
SC
,
Whiteson
J
,
MacDonald
K
,
Haas
F
,
Collins
EG
,
Goldring
RM
,
Reibman
J
,
Wu
Y
, et al.
Acceptability of capnography-assisted respiratory therapy: A new mind–body intervention for COPD
.
ERJ Open Res
2021
;
7
(
4
):
00256
.
16.
Jarenback
L
,
Tufvesson
E
,
Ankerst
J
,
Bjermer
L
,
Jonson
B
.
The efficiency index (EFFi), based on volumetric capnography, may allow for simple diagnosis and grading of COPD
.
Int J Chronic Obstruct Pulm Dis
2018
;
13
:
2033
-
2039
.
17.
Tusman
G
,
Scandurra
A
,
Böhm
SH
,
Suarez-Sipmann
F
,
Clara
F
.
Model fitting of volumetric capnograms improves calculations of airway dead space and slope of phase III
.
J Clin Monit Comput
2009
;
23
:
197
-
206
.
18.
Motta-Ribeiro
GC
,
Vidal Melo
MF
,
Jandre
FC
.
A simplified 4-parameter model of volumetric capnograms improves calculations of airway dead space and slope of Phase III
.
J Clin Monit Comput
2020
;
34
:
1265
-
1274
.
19.
Hosmer
DW
, Jr.
,
Lemeshow
S
,
Sturdivant
RX
.
Applied Logistic Regression
, Vol.
398
.
John Wiley and Sons
.
2013
.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548387
20.
Cortes
C
,
Vapnik
V
.
Support-vector networks
.
Mach Learn
1995
;
20
:
273
-
297
.
21.
Zhang
M-L
,
Zhou
Z-H
.
ML-KNN: A lazy learning approach to multi-label learning
.
Pattern Recognit
2007
;
40
(
7
):
2038
-
2048
.
22.
Breiman
L
.
Random forests
.
Mach Learn
2001
;
45
:
5
-
32
.
23.
Chen
T
,
Guestrin
C
.
XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system
.
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
.
2016
. pp.
785
-
794
.https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785.
24.
Thorat
Y
,
Pawar
S
,
Salvi
S
,
Das
V
,
Fletcher
R
,
Anand
A
,
Chamberlain
D
.
Diagnostic accuracy of COPD severity grading using machine learning features and lung sounds
.
Eur Respir Soc
;
2019
:
PA3992
.
25.
Sørensen
L
,
Nielsen
M
,
Petersen
J
,
Pedersen
JH
,
Dirksen
A
,
de Bruijne
M
.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease quantification using CT texture analysis and densitometry: Results from the Danish lung cancer screening trial
.
Am J Roentgenol
2020
;
214
(
6
):
1269
-
1279
.
26.
Levy
J
,
Alvarez
D
,
Del Campo
F
,
Behar
JA
.
Machine learning for nocturnal diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using digital oximetry biomarkers
.
Physiol Meas
2021
;
42
(
5
):
054001
.
27.
Spina
G
,
Casale
P
,
Albert
PS
,
Alison
J
,
Garcia-Aymerich
J
,
Clarenbach
CF
,
Costello
RW
,
Hernandes
NA
,
Leuppi
JD
,
Mesquita
R
, et al.
Nighttime features derived from topic models for classification of patients with COPD
.
Comput Biol Med
2021
;
132
:
104322
.

Xiuying Mou received a bachelor’s degree from Yunnan University in 2018 and is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the Aerospace Information Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Her research is focused on bio-health sensing, with a particular emphasis on the development of algorithms for COPD diagnosis and exercise health monitoring.

Peng Wang received a B.E. degree from the School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong University, China, in 2017, and an M.E. degree from the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, China, in 2020. From 2020 to the present, he was a Research Assistant with the Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences. His current research interests include emergency medical information processing, biomedical signal processing, and Research on multi-channel bioelectrical equipment.

Xianya Yu received a Bachelor degree in measurement and control technology and instrumentation from Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China. She is currently working toward her Ph.D. degree at the Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Her research interests were biomedical signal processing artificial intelligence algorithm.

Sun Jie, a master in the field of electronic information from the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, has been the CTO of Zhongke Guangrun (Zhongshan) Technology Co., Ltd. since 2020. His main research fields are intelligent perception and computing, multi-source information fusion and intelligent analysis, biometrics and identity recognition.

Xianxiang Chen received a Ph.D. degree from the Institute of Electrics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. He is an associate researcher at the Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. His study focuses on wearable devices for physiological parameter measurement and biomedical signal processing based on machine learning.

Lidong Du received a Ph.D. degree from the Institute of Electrics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. He is an associate researcher at the Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. He is a member of the China Society of Micron and Nano Technology. His research interests include flexible sensing technology, and medical and environmental signal acquisition and processing technology.

Zhenfeng Li received the Ph.D. degree in biomedical engineering from the Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China, in 2022. He is currently an assistant research fellow at the Aerospace Information Research Institute, Beijing, China. His research interests include wearable devices development, biomedical signal processing, and artificial intelligence in medicine.

Xia Jingen received a M.D. from Beihang University. He is a Chief respiratory therapist at China-Japan Friendship Hospital and specializes in respiratory physiology, mechanical ventilation, airway management and pulmonary rehabilitation.

Xiaoran Li received the M.D. and Ph.D. degree from the Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. She is currently a doctor in the department of cardiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, focusing on the management of arrhythmia, and cardiovascular related chronic diseases such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia. She has published several academic papers. Her research fields are mainly about myocardial reperfusion and imaging analysis, endocrine metabolism, and other fields.

Zhen Fang received a Ph.D. degree from the Institute of Electrics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. He is a professor at the Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. His research interests include wearable device development, medical artificial intelligence technology, and medical big data platform management technology.