Epidemiology and costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) initiative to facilitate standardised burden studies at an international level; and 3) the ongoing discussions to set up large, long-term cohorts of patients to better define the natural history of COPD. These programmes, together with the dissemination of GOLD in .70 countries, are helping to spread a more positive message about COPD and raise awareness of its importance. This International Research Workshop on the Global Burden of COPD was organised with the aid of an unrestricted grant from GlaxoSmithKline R&D (Greenford, Middlesex, UK). The current authors were able to convince .30 researchers, most of them with an international reputation in COPD epidemiology, health economics and related areas of research, to share their experiences and vision about COPD in Vancouver, Canada. The success of the workshop was guaranteed by the quality and diversity of its speakers from five continents. The participants were from the World Health Organization (WHO), GOLD, ATS and ERS, and included cancer and cardiovascular epidemiologists. The programme was divided into three main sessions: burden; natural history and surrogates; and policy. Each speaker provided a mini-paper summarising his/her presentation. The current authors would like to sincerely thank the European Respiratory Journal for considering and disseminating these proceedings. Finally, a sad note is required. Professor Romain Pauwels was supportive of this workshop from its conception and aimed to participate actively. However, he was unable to attend due to his fragile health and finally passed away on January 3, 2005. It is to his tireless effort to fight lung disease with an international, scientificevidence approach that these proceedings are dedicated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".