MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754409237 · doi:10.1183/13993003.01154-2017

Work productivity loss in mild to moderate COPD: lessons learned from the CanCOLD study

2017· letter· en· W2754409237 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Riany de Sousa Sena, Sara Ahmed, Wan C. Tan, Pei Z. Li, Laura Labonté, Shawn D. Aaron, Andrea Benedetti, Kenneth R. Chapman, Brandie Walker, J. Mark FitzGerald, Paul Hernandez, François Maltais, Darcy D. Marciniuk, Denis E. O’Donnell, Don D. Sin, Jean Bourbeau

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health Centre
FundersPfizer CanadaReseau canadien de recherche respiratoireInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthGlaxoSmithKlineCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University Health CentrePfizer
KeywordsPresenteeismCOPDAbsenteeismProductivityMedicineGerontologyWork productivityPopulationLimitingPsychologyFamily medicineDemographyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthSociologySocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little attention has been given to the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on work productivity loss. Individuals with COPD are at risk of reduced working hours, absenteeism, presenteeism and early retirement [1]. Studies have been focused mostly on patients attending outpatient clinics [2], which exclude individuals with undiagnosed COPD, thus limiting the external validity of the findings. There are very few population-based cohort studies [3–6], few reports on presenteeism [5], and a lack of objective measures to define COPD [6]. There would be value in knowing the extent of work productivity loss in individuals with mild COPD, or those who are yet undiagnosed. This could further translate into the allocation of health management programmes in the workplace. COPD patients with high symptom burden or CAT ≥10 have an increased likelihood of experiencing work productivity loss The authors thank the men and women who participated in the study and individuals in the CanCOLD Collaborative Research Group. Author contributions: R. de Sousa Sena contributed to the conception and implementation of the study, analysis of the data, and writing of the manuscript. J. Bourbeau contributed to the study conception and design, implementation and acquisition of the data, and writing and revision of the article. S. Ahmed contributed to the study conception and design and the writing and revision of the article. W.C. Tan, L. Labonté, S.D. Aaron, A. Benedetti, K.R. Chapman, B. Walker, J.M. Fitzgerald, P. Hernandez, F. Maltais, D.D. Marciniuk, D.E. O'Donnell and D.D. Sin contributed to the acquisition of data and revision of the article. P.Z. Li contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the data. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript. Members of the CanCOLD Collaborative Research Group are as follows. Executive Committee: Jean Bourbeau (McGill University, Montreal, Canada); Wan C. Tan, J. Mark FitzGerald; Don Sin (UBC, Vancouver, Canada); Darcy Marciniuk (University of Saskatoon, Saskatoon, Canada); Dennis E. O'Donnell (Queen's University, Kingston, Canada); Paul Hernandez (Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada); Kenneth R. Chapman (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada); Robert Cowie (University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada); Shawn Aaron (University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada); F. Maltais (University of Laval, Quebec City, Canada). International Advisory Board: Jonathon Samet (Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA); Milo Puhan (John Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD); Qutayba Hamid (McGill University, Montreal, Canada); James C. Hogg (UBC James Hogg Research Center, Vancouver, Canada). Operations Center: Jean Bourbeau (PI), Carole Jabet, Palmina Mancino, (McGill University, Montreal, Canada); Wan C. Tan (co-PI), Don Sin, Sheena Tam, Jeremy Road, Joe Comeau, Adrian Png, Harvey Coxson, Jonathon Leipsic, Cameron Hague (University of British Columbia James Hogg Research Center, Vancouver, Canada). Economic Core: Mohsen Sadatsafavi (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada). Public Health Core: Teresa To, Andrea Gershon (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada). Data Management and Quality Control: Wan C. Tan, Harvey Coxson (UBC, Vancouver, Canada); Jean Bourbeau, Pei Zhi Li, Zhi Song, Yvan Fortier, Andrea Benedetti, Dennis Jensen (McGill University, Montreal, Canada). Field Centers: Wan C. Tan (Vancouver PI), Christine Lo, Sarah Cheng, Cindy Fung, Nancy Haynes, Junior Chuang, Licong Li, Selva Bayat, Amanda Wong, Zoe Alavi, Catherine Peng, Bin Zhao, Nathalie Scott-Hsiung, Tasha Nadirshaw (UBC James Hogg Research Center, Vancouver, Canada); Jean Bourbeau (Montreal PI), Palmina Mancino, David Latreille, Jacinthe Baril, Laura Labonté (McGill University, Montreal, Canada); Kenneth Chapman (Toronto PI), Patricia McClean, Nadeen Audisho (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada); R. Cowie and B. Walter (Calgary PI), Ann Cowie, Curtis Dumonceaux, Lisette Machado (University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada); Paul Hernandez (Halifax PI), Scott Fulton, Kristen Osterling (Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada); Shawn Aaron (Ottawa PI), Kathy Vandemheen, Gay Pratt, Amanda Bergeron (University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada); Denis O'Donnell (Kingston PI), Matthew McNeil, Kate Whelan (Queen's University, Kingston, Canada); François Maltais (Quebec PI), Cynthia Brouillard (Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada); Darcy Marciniuk (Saskatoon PI), Ron Clemens, Janet Baran (University of Saskatoon, Saskatoon, Canada).

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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