MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7046309810

COPD exacerbations: definitions and classifications

2009· book-chapter· en· W7046309810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Research Information System University of Ferrara (University of Ferrara) · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCOPDExacerbationCopd exacerbationSputumPulmonary diseaseObstructive lung diseaseGold standard (test)DiseaseIntervention (counseling)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most recent update of the international NHLBI/WHO Global Initiative for Chronic \nObstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines defines chronic obstructive pulmonary disease \n(COPD) with respect to its pulmonary and extrapulmonary (systemic) components, but \ndoes not mention exacerbations in the main definition, even though they are the main cause \nof medical intervention and admission to hospital in these patients. In the same guidelines, \nan exacerbation of COPD is separately defined as ‘an event in the natural course of the \ndisease characterised by a change in the patient’s baseline dyspnoea, cough and/or sputum that is \nbeyond normal day-to-day variations, is acute in onset, and may warrant a change in regular medication \nin a patient with underlying COPD’. The latest GOLD guidelines also provide a classification \nof the severity of the exacerbations of COPD based on clinical parameters to drive \nthe necessity and the type of antibiotic therapy. \nSimilarly, the latest update of the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) recommendations for \nthe management of COPD defines an exacerbation of COPD as ‘a sustained worsening of dyspnoea, \ncough or sputum production leading to an increase in the use of maintenance medications and/ \nor supplementation with additional medications’. The term ‘sustained’ implies a change from \nbaseline lasting 48 h or more. In addition, COPD exacerbations are defined as either purulent \nor non-purulent on the assumption that this is helpful in predicting the need for antibiotic \ntherapy. Again, in a strict analogy to the latest GOLD guidelines, the CTS update \nalso provides a classification of the severity of purulent exacerbations of COPD, recognising \nboth simple and complicated purulent COPD exacerbations, based on the presence of clinical \nrisk factors that either increase the likelihood of treatment failure or are more likely to \nbe associated with more virulent or resistant bacterial pathogens. \nAlthough both the GOLD and CTS definitions and classifications of the severity of COPD \nexacerbations may provide a useful practical tool for clinical studies, they have not been formally \nvalidated in clinical trials and are rather cumbersome and difficult to use in clinical \npractice. Other definitions derived from the literature are also used and are discussed below.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Research Information System University of Ferrara (University of Ferrara)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207