MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405194161 · doi:10.5588/ijtld.15.0472

The global economic burden of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

2015· review· en· W2405194161 on OpenAlexaff
Solmaz Ehteshami‐Afshar, J. Mark FitzGerald, Mary M. Doyle‐Waters, Mohsen Sadatsafavi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDAsthmaIntensive care medicineDisease burdenLife expectancyPulmonary diseaseEnvironmental healthDiseaseInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-communicable diseases are now the number one cause of disabilities and loss of life expectancy. Among them, chronic respiratory conditions constitute a major class. The burden of chronic respiratory diseases is generally increasing across the globe, and asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are among the main causes of mortality and morbidity. However, the direct and indirect costs of these conditions vary across jurisdictions. This article reports on recent estimates of the costs of asthma and COPD, with a focus on comparing disease burden across different regions. Overall, there is tremendous variation in per capita annual costs of asthma and COPD. However, the methodology of the cost-of-illness studies is also vastly different, making it difficult to associate differences in reported costs to differences in the true burden of asthma and COPD. Suggestions are provided towards improving the validity and comparability of future studies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations211
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung DiseaseSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207