Comparison of Nutrition and Lung Function Outcomes in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis Living in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: A 10-year gap in the median age of survival for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) was reported between patients living in Canada compared with patients living in the United States. OBJECTIVES: Because both malnutrition and poor lung function are associated with an increased risk of mortality in CF, we investigated the temporal and longitudinal trends in lung function and nutrition between Canada and the United States. METHODS: This cohort study used Canadian CF Registry and U.S. CF Foundation Patient Registry data from 1990 to 2013. A unified dataset was created to harmonize the variables collected within the two registries for the purpose of comparing outcomes between the two countries. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: and BMI trajectories. The study included a total of 37,772 patients in the United States and 5,149 patients in Canada. Patients with CF experienced significant improvements in nutritional status and lung function in both Canada and the United States during the study. In addition, the survival gap between the two countries is narrowing within younger birth cohorts. The improvements for the patients within the United States were most prominent in the BMI trajectories, where patients born after 1990 in the United States have higher BMI that has persisted over time. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons for the observed improvements, and catch-up in the United States, are likely multifactorial and include the introduction of high-fat, high-calorie diets; introduction of newborn screening; and/or improved access to care for CF children in the United States.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".