MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091427738 · doi:10.1106/777c-kd4j-ym5x-xw1m

Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Review

2001· review· en· W2091427738 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-France Beauchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy Practice · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDIntensive care medicineAnticholinergicQuality of life (healthcare)PharmacotherapyPulmonary rehabilitationPulmonary diseaseSmoking cessationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects about 14 million persons in the United States and is the only common cause of death that is increasing in incidence. Chronic management of this disorder includes nonpharmacologic interventions such as smoking cessation, immunization, nutritional support, and pulmonary rehabilitation. The pharmacotherapy of COPD is based on regular administration of bronchodilators, when symptoms are persistent. Long-acting bronchodilators have been shown to improve quality of life in patients with COPD. Ipratropium remains the anticholinergic of choice, but more specific agents with a longer duration of action should become available. Four recent large clinical trials on the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have been published. The results demonstrate that ICS do not alter the decline in lung function in patients with COPD. Patients with more severe COPD and frequent exacerbations may have a better quality of life and a reduced rate of exacerbations with ICS. Management of acute exacerbations involves three major pharmacologic treatment modalities: antibiotics, short-acting bronchodilators, and systemic steroids. Recent data shows the benefits of systemic corticosteroids in the management of acute exacerbations.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy PracticeSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207