Reflecting the Changing Face of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Sex and Gender in Public Education Materials on COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that sex and gender differences exist in the prevalence, susceptibility to, severity of, and response to treatment and management of, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the identification of knowledge gaps regarding sex, gender, and COPD involves not only pinpointing what areas of etiology, epidemiology, and management need to be examined from a sex and gender perspective (as discussed in other articles of this issue), but also must include discussion of how such new and emerging findings are translated to health care professionals, policy makers, and the general population. How emerging knowledge is reflected in educational, awareness-raising, and policy materials made available to the public through community-based organizations, lung health advocacy organizations, the government, and clinicians is not known. A preliminary examination of such documents from around the world suggests that many materials continue to present COPD as a disease that primarily afflicts men. This gap in the translation of research knowledge may be specifically problematic for women-for example, because they may not be adequately informed of the symptoms of COPD, be appropriately screened for the disease, or receive appropriate interventions and treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".