New models of care for respiratory disease: A thematic edition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several years ago, and almost by chance, I attended an early meeting of what would later become the Cambridge-based Breathlessness Research Interest Group.I found myself in the company of such luminaries as Dr Sara Booth and Professor Irene Higginson and colleagues in an atmosphere of exemplary intellectual and clinical enquiry that I knew that I had, in some ways, ''come home.''Halifax, Nova Scotia, is 4600 km from Cambridge, England, and yet we subsequently managed to forge a collaboration that allowed for productive exchange visits.One such trip led to my coauthor, Morag Farquhar, and her physiotherapist colleague, Petrea Fagan (early key players in Sara Booth's Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS)), presenting at Medical Grand Rounds where the audience in Halifax heard for the first time how a focused, patient-centered, home-based, and multidisciplinary approach to the disabling symptom of dyspnea could prove beneficial to patients, caregivers, and the health system alike.More than a decade on and I am delighted to be able to introduce, with Morag, a series of manuscripts for Chronic Respiratory Disease that will highlight various initiatives under an umbrella of ''new models of care.''Two models (BIS, from Cambridge, and INSPIRED, from Halifax) featured in a recent review in the Canadian Medical Association Journal entitled ''Palliative care for chronic illness: driving change.''1 While our respective approaches and reach are different, both programs are based on the fundamental premise that an understanding of patient and caregiver need, and a multidisciplinary intervention that meets that need, can have profoundly beneficial effects.Evaluation has been key to the success of both models.We differ in that Cambridge (not unexpectedly) took a more rigorous academic approach, developing
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 | 0.017 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".