The Canadian Bronchiectasis and Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Registry: a study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bronchiectasis is a complex, chronic disease with geographic and ethnic diversity. While the most substantial cohort studies have been conducted in Europe and the USA, Canada also faces considerable challenges. The comprehensive Canadian Bronchiectasis and Nontuberculous Mycobacterial (NTM) Registry aims to 1) outline the clinical characteristics and natural history of bronchiectasis in Canada, 2) identify risk factors contributing to disease progression within Canadians, 3) integrate comprehensive clinical information to better understand the phenotypes of bronchiectasis and 4) support the development of large-scale, randomised controlled trials in Canada. Methods: The Canadian Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry is an ongoing prospective, longitudinal, multi-centre, observational cohort study. It aims to enrol at least 2000 participants to collect data such as medical history, aetiological assessments, lung function tests, microbiological profiles, radiographic evaluations, comorbidities and quality of life (QoL) metrics. Participants will undergo annual follow-ups to gather longitudinal information regarding outcomes, treatments and changes in QoL. The inclusion criteria are a diagnosis of bronchiectasis by clinical history and computed tomography and/or pulmonary NTM infection as defined by American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines. The study's protocol received ethical approval from the lead site, the University of Calgary, with future additional approval from local ethics committees at all participating centres. Discussion: The outcomes of the registry will be instrumental in uncovering the clinical traits and natural history of bronchiectasis. This longitudinal study will be used for analysis to form evidence-based clinical practices and serve as a resource in Canada to inform future studies in NTM and bronchiectasis.
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 | 0.030 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.011 |
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".