MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536250760 · doi:10.1080/17476348.2016.1251843

Chronic breathlessness in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a major challenge for caregivers

2016· review· en· W2536250760 on OpenAlexaff
Denis E. O’Donnell, J. Alberto Neder, Ingrid Harle, Onofre Moran‐Mendoza

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Respiratory Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisPulmonary fibrosisPulmonary diseaseIntensive care medicineCOPDFibrosisInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is one of the most common forms of interstitial lung disease, with a median survival time of two to five years. Most patients with IPF experience chronic breathlessness, which is closely linked to poor perceived quality of life and significant restriction of daily activities; therefore, effective management of this distressing symptom is a major goal of patient care. Areas covered: This report summarizes the physiology of IPF during rest and exercise, outlines current concepts of the mechanisms of breathlessness, and provides a physiological rationale for optimal management of individual patients. It also examines the evidence for efficacy of a number of therapeutic interventions currently at our disposal for the management of breathlessness in IPF, which aim to reduce respiratory neural drive, reduce worsening of mechanical load, and alter central perception. Expert commentary: The current evidence supporting general measures in relieving chronic breathlessness is weak; hence, more carefully designed prospective studies are required.

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)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Respiratory MedicineSame topicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisFrench-language works237,207