Just breathe: a review of sex and gender in chronic lung disease
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic lung diseases are the third leading cause of death worldwide and are increasing in prevalence over time. Although much of our traditional understanding of health and disease is derived from study of the male of the species - be it animal or human - there is increasing evidence that sex and gender contribute to differences in disease risk, prevalence, presentation, severity, treatment approach, response and outcomes. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and bronchiectasis represent the most prevalent and studied chronic lung diseases and have key sex- and gender-based differences which are critical to consider and incorporate into clinical and research approaches. Mechanistic differences present opportunities for therapeutic development whereas behavioural and clinical differences on the part of patients and providers present opportunities for greater education and understanding at multiple levels. In this review, we seek to summarise the sex- and gender-based differences in key chronic lung diseases and outline the clinical and research implications for stakeholders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it