MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis

2000· article· en· W2006216819 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Infectious Diseases · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChronic bronchitisIntensive care medicineDiseaseClinical trialQuality of life (healthcare)ModalitiesBronchitisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis are one of the major public health challenges. New data suggest that they will remain so for many years. Although the role of bacteria in the initiation and maintenance of bronchial inflammation, both during and between exacerbations, is well recognized, studies of the long-term effects of therapy are few and inadequate, and the nature of the relationship with disease progression is largely unknown. Data are beginning to emerge that firmly link bacterial inflammation and progressive disease with physiological and functional disability. Methods are being developed to provide integrated, uncomplicated and reproducible assessments of health-related quality of life. These may prove fundamental to the proper investigation of new treatment modalities. Among the newer antibacterial agents, fluoroquinolones have received most investigative attention, regrettably usually without providing clinical confirmation of their obvious superiority in vitro and of their pharmacokinetic and related pharmacodynamic properties. New trial designs need to address an integrated outcome analysis, with the assessment of long-term benefit and pharmaco-economic monitoring. More antibacterial agents are available at the millennium than ever before. After 50 years, it would be preferable if we knew a little more about their role in this complex disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Infectious DiseasesSame topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207