Airway clearance techniques and exercise in people with bronchiectasis: two different coins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For people with bronchiectasis, achieving long-term adherence to physiotherapy strategies is a major challenge. The regular use of airway clearance techniques (ACTs) reduces the burden of sputum-related symptoms ( e.g. increased expectoration during ACT session and reduced need to expectorate/cough throughout the rest of the day), improves quality of life and may reduce exacerbations, according to a recent European Respiratory Society statement [1]; however, there are barriers to long-term implementation (figure 1). There are traditional ( e.g. positioning, manual percussions and vibrations) and contemporary strategies ( e.g. breathing techniques and devices providing vibrations and/or positive or negative pressures) for airway clearance [1]. The selection of the most appropriate ACT for an individual patient is usually determined by respiratory physiotherapists, with selection based on clinical judgement and the patient's characteristics, symptoms, understanding and preferences [2]. Exercise and airway clearance techniques are two different coins, which when used together can make patients with bronchiectasis rich! https://bit.ly/3Lb7eyq
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".