Canadian consensus recommendations for a research agenda in pulmonary rehabilitation post-acute exacerbation of COPD: A meeting report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: A recent Cochrane review concluded that Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) post-acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is safe, reduces hospital admissions and improves quality of life and exercise capacity of patients post-AECOPD. Despite these benefits, recent reports have highlighted poor referral, uptake and completion rates of early post-AECOPD PR. These concerns provided the foundation for the “PR Post-AECOPD Meeting”, which was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and held in Montreal in November 2017.OBJECTIVES The objectives were to identify key research priorities in the complex area of care of delivering PR post-AECOPD.METHODS Meeting participants were asked to complete a pre-meeting survey in order to foster thinking prior to the beginning of the discussions. The first day of the meeting involved presentations from experts and a review of the pre-meeting survey results. Facilitated small group discussions occurred using the consensus building technique (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats [SWOT] method). The second day focused on large group discussions in order to identify the research themes.RESULTS The top three research themes identified were: 1) a phased approach to PR post-AECOPD, 2) patient-centered interventions and outcomes and 3) gaining a greater understanding of the emotional and psychological impacts of AECOPD. Other identified themes were: how to improve referral, uptake and access to PR post-AECOPD, how to reach under-served patient groups and cost-effectiveness of potential individualized interventions.CONCLUSIONS In this meeting, the stakeholders identified research priorities that should guide clinicians and researchers in their efforts to produce high-quality evidence.
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 | 0.275 | 0.370 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.009 |
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".