Scaling up strategies of the chronic respiratory disease programme of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (Action Plan B3: Area 5)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action Plan B3 of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA) focuses on the integrated care of chronic diseases. Area 5 (Care Pathways) was initiated using chronic respiratory diseases as a model. The chronic respiratory disease action plan includes (1) AIRWAYS integrated care pathways (ICPs), (2) the joint initiative between the Reference site MACVIA-LR (Contre les MAladies Chroniques pour un VIeillissement Actif) and ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma), (3) Commitments for Action to the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing and the AIRWAYS ICPs network. It is deployed in collaboration with the World Health Organization Global Alliance against Chronic Respiratory Diseases (GARD). The European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing has proposed a 5-step framework for developing an individual scaling up strategy: (1) what to scale up: (1-a) databases of good practices, (1-b) assessment of viability of the scaling up of good practices, (1-c) classification of good practices for local replication and (2) how to scale up: (2-a) facilitating partnerships for scaling up, (2-b) implementation of key success factors and lessons learnt, including emerging technologies for individualised and predictive medicine. This strategy has already been applied to the chronic respiratory disease action plan of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing.
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 | 0.093 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".