Definition and Nomenclature of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Time for Its Revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attempts to define concepts and things date back to the time of Aristotle, around 2,400 years ago, when he proposed that a definition should state the essential nature or being of something (1). However, this abstract concept (2–4) may not translate well to medical practice, where precise definitions are needed to communicate to colleagues and patients and to conduct epidemiological, clinical, translational, and discovery research in the presence of new evidence brought about by scientific progress. Since Aristotle’s initial discussions, the last 24 centuries have witnessed the appearance and evolution of definitions of many things that surround us, including diseases (5). In medicine, accurate and precise definitions (nosology) and classification of diseases (taxonomy) allow thinking, speaking, and writing about observable phenomena in an understandable and unified way.
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 | 0.089 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".