Advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: rethinking models of care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unique among leading causes of death in western society. Prevalence, associated morbidity and attributable mortality continue to rise. The resultant cost in quality of life to patients, families and to the health care system in general, demands improvements in the prevention and treatment of this common and ultimately debilitating condition. Traditional healthcare approaches to COPD, based on the biomedical model, have focused on the underlying pathophysiology of disease within which patients receive episodic care aimed at treating and preventing acute exacerbations. In contrast, patients living with COPD interpret it from an individually experienced illness perspective impacted by unique contextual factors that influence personal meaning. The psychosocial ramifications that follow the inexorable decline in capacity and independence are powerful forces shaping the experience of patients living with advancing COPD. The dominant role and impact of psychosocial effects on quality of life in advancing COPD require us to rethink our approach to care to more effectively address these more elusive yet chronically troublesome issues.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".