MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6887718626 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/7c2eq

Sex differences in dyspnea in adults with obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· other· en· W6887718626 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary diseaseSex characteristicsCOPDSystematic reviewMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to determine whether females and males with obstructive pulmonary conditions experience dyspnea differently in regards to prevalence, quality, and intensity. Our objectives will be: 1) to synthesize the current research on sex differences in dyspnea; 2) to evaluate the potential underlying mechanisms of sex differences in dyspnea; and 3) to explore the clinical implications of sex differences in dyspnea and the potential impact these findings have on the assessment and treatment of dyspnea in adults with obstructive pulmonary conditions.

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 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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.028
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207