MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140641438 · doi:10.1177/1049732304265973

The Dyspnea-Anxiety-Dyspnea Cycle—COPD Patients’ Stories of Breathlessness: “It’s Scary /When you Can’t Breathe”

2004· article· en· W2140641438 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Hill Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExacerbationMedicineCOPDAnxietyIntensive care medicineDistressPulmonary diseasePhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dyspnea, the major symptom associated with acute exacerbation events of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), is a subjective experience. Extensive research has been done on the pathophysiology and affective components of dyspnea; however, the precise physical mechanism of breathlessness remains elusive. One purpose of this narrative research was to explore the affective component of dyspnea/anxiety as described by patients living with COPD characterized by acute illness events. Ten patient-family units participated in interviews during an acute episode of the patient's lung disease. They described their understanding of acute dyspnea as an experience inextricably related to anxiety and emotional functioning. Their stories suggest that given the absence of clear objective measures of illness severity, patient-reported anxiety might provide an important marker during acute exacerbation events. Health care providers need to recognize anxiety as an important and potentially measurable sign of invisible dyspnea for end-stage patients with COPD in acute respiratory distress.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations275
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207