Bronchiectasis Among Adult First Nations Indigenous People - A ScopingReview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Among First Nations adults living in OECD nations bronchiectasis appears at a particularly heightened rate, due to high childhood incidence, and high prevalence of associated risk factors. To date, however, the extent of the bronchiectasis disease burden among adult First Na-tions people has not been formally assessed. Methods: Two databases (Pubmed and Scopus) were reviewed for English literature published from January 2000 to March 2022 pertaining to bronchiectasis among adult First Nations indigenous people residing in OECD nations. All studies that reported on prevalence, incidence, or outcomes (i.e., hospitalisations, mortality) directly associated with bronchiectasis were included. Studies that did not provide indigenous specific, bronchiectasis specific data, or were paediatric studies were ex-cluded. Participant numbers and demographics, bronchiectasis prevalence or incidence, respiratory comorbidities and outcomes including mortality, hospitalisations or univariate or multivariate mod-elling to describe the risk of bronchiectasis and outcomes were tabulated. Results: Twenty-five studies were included, drawn from Australia (n=16), New Zealand (n=7) and North America (n=1), with most studies (n=21) reporting on referred populations. A median num-ber of participants was 241 (range 31 to 1765) (excluding nationwide hospitalisation datasets (n=3)) with a mean age of 48.4 years, and 55% females. The hospital admission rate for bronchiectasis was 3.5x to 5x higher among Māori compared to non-Māori New Zealanders, and 5x higher in indige-nous compared to non-indigenous Australians. Mortality ranged from 10 to 56% on follow-up. Conclusion: Bronchiectasis disease burden is higher among adult First Nations indigenous popula-tions, presenting earlier with high mortality and hospitalisation rate. Further studies are required to address this inequality.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".