Identification of Patients With COPD in a Cardiac Rehabilitation Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility of screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR) setting and to evaluate the detection rate of COPD using a targeted screening protocol. METHODS: A total of 95 patients (62.5 ± 10.0 yr; men, n = 77), >40-yr old with a history of smoking were included in the study sample. Each participant answered the 5-item Canadian Lung Health Test (CLHT) questionnaire assessing symptoms such as coughing, phlegm, wheezing, shortness of breath, and frequent colds. Endorsing ≥1 item was indicative of potential COPD and warranted pulmonary function testing (PFT) and/or spirometry to diagnose or rule out COPD. RESULTS: The CLHT questionnaire identified 44 patients at risk for COPD, with an average of 1.9 ± 1.2 items endorsed. Of the patients who underwent PFT, 6 new cases of mild COPD were diagnosed, resulting in a true positive rate with CLHT screening of 19% and a false-positive rate of 81%. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the CLHT to patients referred to CR correctly identified COPD in <20% of cases. Using the CLHT to screen for COPD prior to starting CR may not be optimal, due to disparities between true- and false-positive rates.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".