Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe an approach to diagnosis and treatment of patients with chronic cough. QUALIITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE was search for reports of studies comducted between 1970 and 2000 on chronic cough and its epidemiology, natural history, diagnois, and theraphy. Articles were further selected based on clinical relevance and design. Most articles reviewed were epidemiology cohort and case studies and reviews. MAIN MESSAGE: Chronic cough, a commom ailment amoung adults, is often a diagnostic challenge. Most cases of chronic cough are associated with postnasal drip syndrome (PNDS), asthma, gastroesphageal reflux disease (GERD), or some combination of these. Initial investigation should include chest radiography to ruke out more ominous causes of chronic cough. Examinations and trials of treatment can diagnose PNDS, asthma, and GERD. Combination treatments are often necessary for managing chronic cough. CONCLUSION: The most common causes of chronic cough are PNDS, asthma, GERD, or some combination of these. A systematic approach to diagnosis and treatment is effective for most cases of chronic. cough.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".