MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415233672 · doi:10.1016/j.bjpt.2025.101539

ASSOBRAFIR clinical practice guidelines in respiratory physical therapy: Exercise-based interventions in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

2025· review· en· W4415233672 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Augusto Camillo, Valéria Amorim Pires Di Lorenzo, Carla Malaguti, Celso Ricardo Fernandes Carvalho, Ercy Mara Cípulo Ramos, Fábio Pitta, Marcelo Velloso, Nídia Aparecida Hernandes, Rafael Mesquita, Renata Gonçalves Mendes, Ana Carolina Pereira Nunes Pinto, Ana Tereza do Nascimento Sales Figu Fernandes, Aline Almeida Gulart, Bruna Mara Franco Silveira, Cristino Carneiro Oliveira, Daniela Gonçalves Ohara, Danielle Soares Rocha Vieira, Hugo Leonardo Alves Pereira, Juliano Ferreira Arcuri, Karolinne Souza Monteiro, Karoliny dos Santos, Laís Coan Fontanela, Laura Maria Tomazi Neves, Lawrence P. Cahalin, Lila Teixeira Araújo Janahú, Liliane Patrícia de Souza Mendes, Magno F. Formiga, Manuela Karloh, Maycon Moura Reboredo, Patrícia Rehder‐Santos, Raphael Martins de Abreu, Rodrigo Santiago Barbosa Rocha, Saúl Rassy Carneiro, Thayla Amorim Santino, Vivian Sussuarana Queiroz Melo, Fabrício Olinda Souza Mesquita, Lucas de Assis Pereira Cacau, Gerson Cipriano, Fernanda Cordoba Lanza

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Physical Therapy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelinePsychological interventionClinical PracticePulmonary diseaseMEDLINERespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of Physical TherapySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207