Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief The multidisciplinary treatment of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), which includes exercise training, self-management education, and psychosocial and nutritional intervention, is now a standard of care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and has been incorporated into major guidelines. We must now focus efforts on improving its impact and widening its applicability. What is the direction of PR; where does it fit in the comprehensive care of the COPD patient; and how can clinicians best apply this important intervention? This was the charge of the roundtable discussion, Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Moving Forward, involving 20 experts from North America and Europe, which was convened in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in early 2008. It is not meant to be an exhaustive review; rather, this report summarizes the roundtable proceedings, while providing direction to best position PR into the continuum of COPD care. By consensus, it was agreed upon that although PR is effective for other chronic respiratory diseases, the discussion focus was COPD since most of the evidence base and patient referral are for this disease. These proceedings provide insight into 3 broad areas appropriate for investigation or implementation: positioning PR in an integrated care model for COPD patients; improving the effectiveness of this intervention; and expanding the recognition, application, and accessibility to PR. It is the hope that this document will provide a catalyst for clinicians, investigators, and healthcare policy makers to help realize these goals as well as serve to suggest important areas for future research and development in PR. A roundtable discussion entitled Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Moving Forward, involving 20 experts from North America and Europe, was convened in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in early 2008. This report summarizes the proceedings and provides direction to best position PR into the continuum of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.189 | 0.092 |
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".