Multimorbidity, frailty and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overwhelming majority of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have at least one coexisting medical condition often conceptualized as 'comorbidities'. These coexisting conditions vary in severity and impact; it is likely that for some patients, COPD is not their most important or severe condition. The concepts of multimorbidity and frailty may be useful to understand the broader needs of people with COPD undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation. Multimorbidity describes the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions, without reference to a primary condition. Best care for people with multimorbidity has been described as a shift from providing disease-focused to patient-centred care. Pulmonary rehabilitation is well placed to deliver such care as it focuses on optimizing function, encourages integration across care settings, values input from multidisciplinary teams and measures patient-important outcomes. When designing optimal pulmonary rehabilitation services for people with multimorbidity, the concept of frailty may be useful. Frailty focuses on impairments rather than medical conditions including impairments in mobility, strength, balance, cognition, nutrition, endurance, mood and physical activity. Emerging data suggest that frailty may be modifiable with pulmonary rehabilitation. The challenge for pulmonary rehabilitation clinicians is to broaden our perspective on the role and outcomes of pulmonary rehabilitation for people with multimorbidity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".