The Sex Factor: Epidemiology and Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence and mortality of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in women have been predicted to overtake that of men within the next decade. These predictions are based in part on data from surveys using self-reports of a COPD diagnosis. Whether these predictions have been realized is unknown. METHODS: The prevalence and mortality of men and women in British Columbia were compared from fiscal years 1992/1993 to 2003/2004 using administrative health services data. Case definitions for COPD were developed using International Classification of Diseases ninth and 10th revision (ICD-9/10) codes applied to medical and hospital data. Individuals 45 years and older, who had at least two physician visits or one hospitalization for specified COPD ICD-9/10 codes within a 365-day window, were considered to be cases. Cases were ascertained from 1992 to 2004. RESULTS: In 2003/2004, men had a greater prevalence (4.7% versus 4.0% in women) and a higher all-cause mortality rate (5.4% versus 4.1% in women) than women. Both men and women with COPD had low COPD medication use (45%) and low referral for lung function testing (55%). Including the ICD-9 code for 'bronchitis, not specified as acute or chronic' (ICD-9 490) in the case definition resulted in a greater prevalence of COPD in women than in men overall, and in the 45 to 64 year age group. CONCLUSION: Prevalence and mortality measured with administrative health data do not show evidence of relative increase in the prevalence of COPD for women in British Columbia. However, further analysis of ICD-9 490 may identify an early 'at-risk' group, specifically in women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".