Assessment of factors and interventions towards therapeutic adherence among persons with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB) is a highly prevalent chronic respiratory disease with substantial burden to both patients and healthcare systems. Persons with NCFB (pwNCFB) are often given complex acute and chronic treatment regimens consisting of medications, airway clearance techniques and exercise. Accordingly, the high burden in NCFB has contributed to lower therapy adherence, with estimates of 53% to medications, 41% to airway clearance and only 16% to all prescribed therapy. Consequent clinical outcomes from lower adherence include reduced quality of life, accelerated lung function decline and recurrent pulmonary exacerbations. In this narrative review, we explore the impact of multifactorial mechanisms underpinning adherence in NCFB and evaluate the available evidence towards interventions to improve uptake of therapy as demonstrated in other chronic respiratory diseases. A holistic approach, starting with a careful review of patient adherence at regular intervals, may increase the success of multidimensional therapeutic interventions in pwNCFB, but robust ongoing studies are an area of need in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".