MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921250200 · doi:10.1080/24745332.2018.1558426

Oscillating positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) device therapy in Canadian respiratory disease management: Review, care gaps and suggestion for use

2019· article· en· W2921250200 on OpenAlex
Jean Bourbeau, Andrew McIvor, Hollie Devlin, Alan Kaplan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Critical Care and Sleep Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsCanadian Standards AssociationUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityTD Bank GroupSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcGill University
FundersCanadian Thoracic Society
KeywordsMedicineCystic fibrosisIntensive care medicineRespiratory systemMucusMucociliary clearancePositive pressurePulmonary diseaseAirwayQuality of life (healthcare)Positive airway pressureRespiratory physiologyAnesthesiaLungInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oscillating positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) devices are a non-pharmacologic therapy that can increase mobilization and elimination of airway mucus hypersecretions. In respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis and others, mucus clearance can improve pulmonary mechanics and facilitate gas exchange, reduce breathlessness, prevent recurring infection, reduce exacerbations and hospitalization and improve quality of life. Several OPEP devices are available, although only a few have published evidence of efficacy, cost effectiveness and benefit to patients. We review the evidence and provide suggestions on inclusion of some OPEP devices in mucus clearance therapy regimens.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.307 · 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