Variations in the Management of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with COPD. AECOPD are the leading cause of hospital admissions in Canada. Although multiple guidelines have been developed for the acute and chronic management of COPD, there are few quality assurance studies investigating adherence to these guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital in 2009 for an AECOPD was performed. Using a standardized data abstraction tool, adherence to current guidelines across different physician groups and patient outcomes were assessed. Particular focus was centred on differences in management across physician groups. RESULTS: Overall, 293 patients were evaluated. Of these, 82.6% were treated with one or more chronic COPD medication(s) in the community, with only 17.7% of patients treated with a long-acting inhaled anticholinergic medication. For treatment of AECOPD, 58% of patients received corticosteroids and 84% received antibiotics. Compared with general medicine and the hospitalist service, the respiratory medicine service demonstrated significantly better adherence with current treatment guidelines; however, even this was less than optimal. In addition, there was poor follow-up of patients cared for outside of the respiratory service. CONCLUSIONS: The present study identified significant care gaps in the treatment of patients admitted with AECOPD and on their discharge.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".