Emerging concepts and therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although considerable advances have been made in the diagnosis and treatment of COPD, much remains to be done both to alleviate symptoms and reduce mortality associated with this condition. Previously, diagnosis, management, and research all centred on staging based on the forced expiratory flow in 1 second. It is now becoming apparent that this is inadequate to truly capture current disease burden and future deterioration. Fortunately, new approaches to care are constantly being identified. It is now known that symptoms and, in particular, exacerbations represent pivotal events in the patient's life that should trigger optimization of care. Much work is currently underway to identify various phenotypes in COPD because it has become obvious that this is a heterogeneous disease and applying the same management algorithms for all patients is insufficient. Several new medications are at various stages of development, some being approved and on the market, while others are undergoing clinical trials. These allow for more options for individualized care of patients. In addition, new applications of old medications, such as long‑term antibiotics, also provide new options for patients struggling with recurrent symptoms. Finally, the growing awareness that this is a heterogeneous disease composed not only of differing phenotypes but also having significant extrapulmonary comorbidities have opened new avenues of research and interdisciplinary collaboration that will further enable us to offer personalized care to patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".