Standards for the care of people with cystic fibrosis (CF); recognising and addressing CF health issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the third in a series of four papers updating the European Cystic Fibrosis Society (ECFS) standards for the care of people with CF. This paper focuses on recognising and addressing CF health issues. The guidance was produced with wide stakeholder engagement, including people from the CF community, using an evidence-based framework. Authors contributed sections, and summary statements which were reviewed by a Delphi consultation. Monitoring and treating airway infection, inflammation and pulmonary exacerbations remains important, despite the widespread availability of CFTR modulators and their accompanying health improvements. Extrapulmonary CF-specific health issues persist, such as diabetes, liver disease, bone disease, stones and other renal issues, and intestinal obstruction. These health issues require multidisciplinary care with input from the relevant specialists. Cancer is more common in people with CF compared to the general population, and requires regular screening. The CF life journey requires mental and emotional adaptation to psychosocial and physical challenges, with support from the CF team and the CF psychologist. This is particularly important when life gets challenging, with disease progression requiring increased treatments, breathing support and potentially transplantation. Planning for end of life remains a necessary aspect of care and should be discussed openly, honestly, with sensitivity and compassion for the person with CF and their family. CF teams should proactively recognise and address CF-specific health issues, and support mental and emotional wellbeing while accompanying people with CF and their families on their life journey.
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 | 0.080 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".