Are We Delivering Optimal Pulmonary Rehabilitation? The Importance of Quality Indicators in Evaluating Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a complex intervention that has been shown to improve exercise capacity and quality of life, reduce dyspnea, and decrease the risk of exacerbations and hospitalization. Although the evidence for PR is strong, the translation of this evidence into clinical practice remains a challenge, and important gaps in care exist. To date, most research in PR has focused on questions related to treatment efficacy. Less attention has been paid to confirming whether the strong evidence base of PR has been effectively translated to this complex clinical setting. Policy makers and other stakeholders in PR are calling for the establishment of core standards and quality indicators in PR to evaluate existing programs and improve patient care. However, what are quality indicators, and how are they used? This Perspective explores quality assurance in the context of PR and introduces the concepts and uses of quality indicators that can be used to evaluate and improve the quality of care.
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 | 0.447 | 0.731 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".