Sex differences in the clinical presentation and management of airflow obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to explore differences in the clinical expression, clinical diagnoses and management of airway diseases in a primary-care setting. Patients aged >or=35 yrs who had ever smoked were enrolled when they presented for any reason to one of eight rural primary-care practices. Respiratory symptom questionnaires and spirometry were administered. In total, 1,034 patients had acceptable and reproducible spirometry, of whom 550 (53%) were males and 484 (47%) were females. Males smoked more than females (41.2 versus 29.2 pack-yrs) respectively, and were more likely to have a pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity <0.70 at 22.4 versus 11.8%, respectively. However, more females than males reported breathlessness (51.0 versus 42.8%, respectively), a prior diagnosis compatible with airflow obstruction and taking respiratory medications (23.4 versus 14.9%, respectively). In conclusion, the current results suggest that females are more likely than males to report breathlessness and be prescribed respiratory medications independent of differences in the severity of airflow obstruction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".