Prevalence and burden of obstructive lung disease in the urban poor population of Ottawa, Canada: a community-based mixed-method, observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally the burden of Obstructive Lung Diseases (OLD) is growing, however its effect on urban poor populations with the high prevalence of tobacco dependence is virtually unknown. The purpose of this project is to estimate the prevalence and burden of OLD in the urban, low-income populations of Ottawa, Canada. METHODS: The study presented in this paper was part of the PROMPT (Management and Point-of-Care for Tobacco Dependence) project; a prospective cohort study in a community-based setting (n = 80) with meaningful Patient Engagement from design to dissemination. Spirometry data, standardized questionnaires and semi-structured interviews from PROMPT were interpreted to understand the lung function, disease burden and social determinants (respectively) in this population. RESULTS: The prevalence of OLD among those who completed spirometry (N = 64) was 45-59%. Generic and disease-specific quality of life was generally poor in all PROMPT participants, even those without OLD, highlighting the higher disease burden this vulnerable population faces. Quality of life was impacted by two major themes, including i) socioeconomic status and stress and ii) social networks and related experiences of trauma. CONCLUSION: The prevalence and disease burden of OLD is significantly higher in Ottawa's urban poor population than what is observed in the general Canadian population who smoke, suggesting an etiological role of the social determinants of health. This urges the need for comprehensive care programs addressing up-stream factors leading to OLDs, including poor access and utilization of preventive healthcare addressing the social determinants of health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrails.gov - NCT03626064 , Retrospective registered: August 2018.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".