Underdiagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Rationale for Spirometry as a Screening Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, and its impact on quality of life can be severe. The debate on spirometry as a screening tool has been raised and dropped on various occasions over the past 30 years. This paper readdresses the debate in the light of recent evidence from population studies. Spirometry is an underused, easy to perform office-based procedure that has been further facilitated by the advent of modern technology. Despite the fact that spirometry is the gold standard for the diagnosis and assessment of COPD, mass screening using this tool remains controversial. This article provides a discussion based on a recent review of the literature regarding the current and future status of spirometry as a screening tool. A thoughtful approach to spirometry screening should include assessments of the magnitude of underdiagnosis, potential effectiveness of intervention, predictive value of spirometry and clinical profile of patients with COPD.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".