Learn from the past and create the future: the 2013 ATS/ERS statement on pulmonary rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary rehabilitation is an established intervention for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); indeed, the delivery of rehabilitation has become routine care for individuals with moderate to severe disease [1]. To guide the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation, practitioners have looked to the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) to offer support in terms of describing the evidence for the intervention and to guide best practice [2]. The new ATS/ERS statement on pulmonary rehabilitation aims to harness international scientific expertise and clinical experience to achieve this challenge [3]. Why a new statement? The 2006 statement provided an excellent reference point for pulmonary rehabilitation [2], but over the past few years there have been several significant developments in the field to warrant a reconsideration of the current position. There is also an obligation to the endorsing societies to ensure that these documents are current and reflect best practice. In June 2010, the process of developing a new statement began. There have been significant developments in our understanding of COPD and the systemic manifestations of the disease, the importance of the intervention in other chronic respiratory disease and the timing of the intervention. The document is complemented by the evidence-based guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians and American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR) [4], which formally graded the quality of the scientific evidence, and the AACVPR guidelines for pulmonary rehabilitation programs, which give practical recommendations [5]. By the very nature of a statement, recommendations cannot be made in the 2013 ATS/ERS statement on pulmonary rehabilitation, as these are the preserve of guidelines. The current ATS/ERS task force was represented by a broad range of professions that are reflected in the interdisciplinary …
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 | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
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".