Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD): Fulfilling the Need for Longitudinal Observational Studies in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Awareness, diagnosis and treatment of COPD, compared to other major causes of death, remains far too low. This article describes the protocol objectives, design and the approaches taken in the Canadian Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study, an epidemiological and integrated research. The CanCOLD study aims at better understanding heterogeneity of COPD presentation and disease progression. We hypothesize that individuals with unfavourable COPD "phenotypes" and subjects at-risk (ever smokers) with unhealthy lifestyle habits, environmental/work exposure, or co-morbidities will have increased risk of lung function decline independent of their cumulative exposure to cigarette smoke. The study is a prospective multi-center cohort study (9 sites in 6 provinces) built on the Canadian COPD prevalence study "COLD." The study plan is to include 1800 subjects at least 40 years old who were sampled from the general population and who were found to fall within 4 groups: 1) COPD moderate-severe (GOLD 2-4); 2) COPD mild (GOLD 1); 3) subjects at-risk (ever smoker); and, 4) subjects never-smoker free of airflow obstruction. Data collection is based on using strictly standardized methods involving questionnaires, pulmonary function and cardiorespiratory exercise tests, CT scans, and blood sampling. CanCOLD is a unique study that will address challenging and important research questions on COPD disease evolution and disease management and will help to define the natural history of COPD disease evolution in individuals at-risk for COPD and in those with COPD who have mild 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".