Canadian Practice Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Respiratory Specialist Physician Perception Versus Patient Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common respiratory condition and the fourth leading cause of death in Canada. Optimal COPD management requires patients to participate in their care and physician knowledge of patients' perceptions of their disease. METHODS: A prospective study in which respiratory specialist physicians completed a practice assessment questionnaire and patient assessments for 15 to 20 consecutive patients with COPD. Patients also completed a questionnaire regarding their perceptions of COPD and its management. RESULTS: A total of 58 respiratory specialist physicians from across Canada completed practice assessments and 931 patient assessments. A total of 640 patients with COPD (96% with moderate, severe or very severe disease) completed questionnaires. Symptom burden was high and most patients had experienced a recent exacerbation. Potential COPD care gaps were identified with respect to appropriate medication prescription, lack of an action plan, and access to COPD educators and pulmonary rehabilitation. Perceived knowledge needs and gaps differed between physicians and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the dissemination of Canadian and international COPD clinical practice guidelines for more than a decade, potential care gaps remain among patients seen by respiratory specialist physicians. Differing perceptions regarding many aspects of COPD among physicians and patients may contribute to these care gaps.
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 | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".