MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078300730 · doi:10.1586/ers.11.43

Assessment and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the emergency department and beyond

2011· review· en· W2078300730 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian H. Rowe, Mohit Bhutani, Rita K. Cydulka

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Respiratory Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineEmergency departmentPulmonary diseasePulmonary rehabilitationDisease managementCOPDQuality of life (healthcare)RehabilitationDiseasePhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPDs) are common, can result in emergency department presentation and often result in hospitalization. After confirming the diagnosis and treating comorbidities, management of severe AECOPD includes bronchodilators, systemic corticosteroids, antibiotics, noninvasive ventilation and, occasionally, endotracheal intubation. Once discharged, delayed follow-up and suboptimal management often occurs. Antibiotics, systemic corticosteroids and optimization of nonpharmacological interventions (e.g., smoking cessation, immunization and pulmonary rehabilitation) are important discharge considerations. Improving linkages to primary providers who adhere to management involving a pharmacological and nonpharmacological evidence-based treatment plan is critical to preventing future AECOPDs, reducing healthcare utilization and maintaining the quality of life of patients following an AECOPD.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Respiratory MedicineSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207