The devastating power of platelets in COPD exacerbations: can aspirin save lives in COPD?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human and societal burden of COPD is alarming. Despite large reductions in smoking rates across industrialised nations, COPD mortality has increased by 60% over the past 20 years, making it the second leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the USA and elsewhere.1 Most of the COPD-related deaths occur during or shortly following acute exacerbations (or ‘lung attacks’). Unfortunately, severe lung attacks are common, with one in six patients requiring hospitalisation for urgent care each year.2 Despite best therapy, 1 in 12 of these patients will succumb to their disease in hospital.3 Even those who survive will experience persistent morbidity from their recent lung attack and never regain their lost health status. Furthermore, one in three patients will have another lung attack in 6–12 months.3 Regrettably, acute and chronic treatments for COPD are suboptimal. Despite global drug expenditures that exceed $36 billion annually for COPD care,4 none of the currently available drugs reduces mortality or modifies disease progression as defined by …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".