Pragmatic Evaluation of an Improvement Program for People Living With Modifiable High-Risk COPD Versus Usual Care: Protocol for the Cluster Randomized PREVAIL Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is well established, but opportunities for earlier diagnosis and improved management are still missed. Compared to the general COPD population, patients with a history of exacerbations and suboptimal treatment ("modifiable high-risk") are at greater risk of future exacerbations and adverse health outcomes. To date there is no systematic approach for identifying and treating this patient group. Method: Two cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) in the United Kingdom and United States will assess the impact of a primary care-based quality improvement program (COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care [CONQUEST]), compared to routine care. In each trial, 126 primary care clusters will be randomized 1:1 to intervention or control arms. Three groups of modifiable high-risk patients will be identified using electronic medical records: undiagnosed with potential COPD, newly diagnosed COPD, and already diagnosed COPD. Eligible patients will be aged ≥40 years, have experienced ≥2 moderate/≥1 severe exacerbation(s) in the prior 24 months, including ≥1 in the last 12 months, and not be prescribed inhaled triple therapy. Patients in the undiagnosed group will also be required to have a positive smoking history. Primary trial outcomes will be the annual rate of exacerbations and the annual rate of major adverse cardiac or respiratory events, comparing the quality improvement program against routine care. Discussion: These will be the first CRTs assessing such a comprehensive primary care-based COPD quality improvement program. Intention-to-treat analysis of trial outcomes after 24 months will inform its effectiveness in targeting the identification, assessment, treatment, and follow-up of patients with modifiable high-risk COPD. Trial registration: UK trial: ISRCTN15819828; US trial: NCT05306743.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it