MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611193592 · doi:10.1183/13993003.00068-2017

Algorithm for identification of asthma–COPD overlap: consensus between the Spanish COPD and asthma guidelines

2017· letter· en· W2611193592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marc Miravitlles, Francisco Javier Álvarez Gutiérrez, Myriam Calle Rubio, Ciro Casanova, Borja G. Cosío, Antolín López-Viña, Luís Pérez de Llano, Santiago Quirce, Miguel Román-Rodríguez, Juan José Soler‐Cataluña, Vicente Plaza

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCOPDMedicineAsthmaBronchodilatorWheezeChronic bronchitisSputumObstructive lung diseasePhysical therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It was as early as 1959 that the report of the CIBA Symposium described the possible coexistence of different obstructive airway diseases, such as asthma, chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema, in the same individual. However, because there were no specific therapies for all these different expressions of lung disease, these overlaps were largely ignored by guidelines. In 1995, the American Thoracic Society chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) statement included a Venn diagram with the different possible overlaps of clinical presentation of obstructive lung diseases [1], but no specific recommendations of treatment were provided for them. It was not until 2007 that the Canadian COPD guidelines specified that: “if the asthma component (in COPD) is prominent, earlier introduction of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may be justified” [2]. Later, in 2010, the Japanese guidelines for COPD dedicated a chapter to “Treatment of COPD complicated by asthma” [3]. To the best of our knowledge, the Spanish guidelines for COPD (GesEPOC) in 2012 were the first to propose specific criteria for the identification of the so-called asthma–COPD overlap (ACO) [4, 5]. Because there was no internationally accepted definition of ACO, a group of experts proposed diagnostic criteria for ACO in COPD [6] and these were adopted in the document. The major criteria were as follows: a very positive bronchodilator response (>400 mL and >15% increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)), sputum eosinophilia or a previous diagnosis of asthma. Minor criteria were an increased total serum IgE, previous history of atopy or a positive bronchodilator test (>200 mL and >12% in FEV1) on at least two occasions [6]. To be diagnosed with ACO, a patient must fulfil two major or one major and two minor criteria. Other national guidelines for COPD, such as the Finnish [7] and the Czech guidelines [8], followed this approach and proposed similar criteria for ACO. An algorithm to identify patients with ACO rather than asthma or COPD alone

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations95
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207