Underdiagnosis and Overdiagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is regarded as one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality across the world, yet its proper diagnosis remains a challenge. Community-based population studies conducted in North and South America, Europe, Australia, and Asia have revealed that 10% to 12% of adults aged 40 years or older have evidence of persistent airflow limitation on spirometry, but only 20% to 30% of these subjects have been diagnosed with COPD. These studies collectively suggest that approximately 70% of COPD worldwide may be underdiagnosed. Conversely, other studies have shown that between 30% and 60% of patients with a previous physician diagnosis of COPD do not actually have the disease, and hence they have been overdiagnosed. In this review, we define under- and overdiagnosis and explore the prevalence and the burden of under- and overdiagnosis of COPD on both patients and healthcare systems. We further describe potential solutions to reduce the incidence of under- and overdiagnosis of COPD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".