A Patient Charter for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has a profound impact on people living with the disease and has a high global economic and social burden. Often, people with COPD are undiagnosed, while those diagnosed are undertreated and undereducated on different aspects of COPD care. Although there are many published evidence-based treatment guidelines from different expert groups and societies, they are frequently not adhered to, which results in significant gaps in care. In particular, 'flare-ups' (known as exacerbations of COPD), which accelerate disease progression, are often under-reported, despite guidelines recommending an escalation of maintenance treatment to prevent subsequent flare-ups. Management of COPD should be proactive to prevent worsening of symptoms and to reduce the risk of future flare-ups and premature death, rather than a secondary reaction to a worsening health status. Key to this is patient access to accurate diagnosis, effective treatment and specialist care, which can vary widely due to socioeconomic differences, geographical locations and poor guideline implementation. In addition, the stigma associated with COPD can act as a barrier, which can result in people being reluctant to access treatment or clinicians being nihilistic. As global patient advocates, we have co-developed this patient charter to set a standard of care that people living with COPD should expect, raising awareness and understanding of the causes and consequences of COPD as well as the potential to improve patient care. Patients with COPD should be empowered to live the highest quality of life possible with the least number of flare-ups. We set out six principles in line with current COPD guideline recommendations, that should be implemented by governments, healthcare providers, policymakers, lung health industry partners and patients/caregivers to drive meaningful change in COPD 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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.012 |
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".