MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W104912033

The quality of medical care during an acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

2014· article· en· W104912033 on OpenAlexaffabout
Liana Pradan, Ivone Ferreira, Paraschiva Postolache

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPulmonary diseaseIntensive care medicineQuality of life (healthcare)DiseaseDisease managementHealth careEmergency medicineInternal medicineNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a significant cause of global morbidity and mortality, with a substantial economic impact. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) represent a dramatic event in the course of the disease; is an important cause of morbidity and the fourth cause of mortality worldwide. During the hospitalization for AECOPD mortality is 10%. AECOPD are also associated with a significant reduction of functional capacity and health-related quality of life. Despite these alarming evidence-based data the response of the healthcare system globally is not adequate to the gravity of the situation. A recently published study done in a Canadian hospital reveals that the treatment of the AECOPD is sub-optimal. The management of the COPD exacerbations prior, during and after the hospitalization showed inadequate adherence of the physicians (respirologists, internists and hospitalists) to the current guidelines. This review outlines the worrisome findings of this study and the proposed measures suggested by the authors in order to optimize the management of AECOPD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→