MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133964622 · doi:10.1155/2003/486285

Canadian Guidelines for the Management of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis

2003· review· en· W2133964622 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Meyer Balter, Jacques La Forge, Donald E. Low, Lionel A. Mandell, Ronald F. Grossman, the Chronic Bronchitis Working Group

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersGlaxoSmithKlinePfizerBristol-Myers Squibb CanadaBristol-Myers SquibbPfizer CanadaAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsMedicineChronic bronchitisExacerbationIntensive care medicineBronchitisAntibioticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB) account for over 1.5 million physician visits annually in Canada and are a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. This document represents a joint effort between respirologists, microbiologists, infectious disease specialists and family physicians to update the Canadian AECB guidelines published in 1994. Treatment recommendations are graded on the strength of evidence in the published literature where possible. The role for oral corticosteroid therapy in preventing treatment failures, speeding up recovery and delaying the time to next exacerbation is discussed. Risk factors for treatment failure were used to stratify patients into risk groups to help guide antibiotic treatment recommendations. The importance of emerging antimicrobial resistance to current antibiotics is reviewed and strategies to prevent future AECB episodes are suggested.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations128
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207