MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301337811 · doi:10.1155/2009/540527

The Nature and Causes of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Historical Perspective

2009· article· en· W2301337811 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C P Warren

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome TrustMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineCOPDChronic bronchitisSpirometryPhlegmPulmonary diseaseBronchitisBronchial obstructionCigarette smokingIntensive care medicineDiseaseChronic coughInternal medicineAsthmaPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the currently favoured name for the diseases formerly known as emphysema and bronchitis. COPD has been recognized for more than 200 years. Its cardinal symptoms are cough, phlegm and dyspnea, and its pathology is characterized by enlarged airspaces and obstructed airways. In the 19th century, the diagnosis of COPD depended on its symptoms and signs of a hyperinflated chest, and reduced expiratory breath sounds. The airflow obstruction evident on spirometry was identified in that century, but did not enter into clinical practice. Bronchitis, and the mechanical forces required to overcome its obstruction, was believed to be responsible for emphysema, although the inflammation present was recognized. The causes of bronchitis, and hence emphysema, included atmospheric and domestic air pollution, as well as dusty occupations. Cigarette smoking only became recognized as the dominant cause in the 20th century. The lessons learned of the risks for COPD in 19th-century Britain are very pertinent to the world today.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207