Characterization of Asthma–Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Overlap Syndrome: A Qualitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 15-20% of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) also display characteristics of asthma. In May 2014, the asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) was briefly addressed in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy documents. We evaluated how pulmonologists diagnose and treat ACOS and how they assess its control. Pulmonologists from two university healthcare centers, having ≥ 1 year experience, treating patients with asthma, COPD, or ACOS, were invited to participate in focus groups. Two focus groups (1 hour duration) were convened with seven and five participants, respectively. According to pulmonologists from both institutions, ACOS is a new name for an existing syndrome rather than a new disease. It is characterized by incomplete reversible airflow limitations and changes in forced expiratory volume in one second over time. The pulmonologists noted that its diagnosis must be based on clinical characteristics, pulmonary function test results, and clinical intuition. To diagnose ACOS, pulmonologists must rely on their clinical judgment. They also agreed that the treatment of patients with ACOS should target the features of both asthma and COPD. Pulmonologists from both institutions used asthma control criteria to assess ACOS control. A deeper understanding would enable clinicians to establish specific criteria for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of subjects with ACOS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".