Is Disease Stability an Attainable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment Goal?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous lung condition characterized by progressive airflow obstruction. Despite advancements in diagnosis and treatment, the disease burden remains high; although clinical trials have shown improvements in outcomes such as exacerbations, quality of life, and lung function, improvement may not be attainable for many patients. For patients who do experience improvement, it is challenging to set management goals given the progressive nature of COPD. We therefore propose disease stability as an appropriate and attainable treatment goal. Other disease areas have developed definitions of no disease activity or remission, which provide relevant information for defining and achieving stability for patients with COPD. Disease stability builds on related concepts already defined in COPD, such as clinical control and clinically important deterioration. Current components that could form part of a disease stability definition include exacerbations, health status (including quality of life and symptoms), and lung function. Considerations should be given to intervals over which stability is defined and assessed, appropriate thresholds, and defining a composite. Ensuring a holistic approach, objective measurements, and harmonious, clear communication between patients and physicians can further support establishing disease stability. Here we propose a preliminary definition of disease stability, informed by existing research in COPD. Further research will be needed to validate the framework for use in clinical and research settings. Exploring disease stability as a goal, however, is an opportunity to develop and validate an attainable treatment target to advance the standard of care for patients with COPD.
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 | 0.026 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".