[Cognitive impairment, nutritional status and clinical profile in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive disease with a prevalence that increases with the aging of the subject. It presents a high prevalence of comorbidities, such as cognitive decline, which is gaining great clinical relevance in recent years. Factors such as pulmonary function, hypoxemia, hypercapnia or exacerbations contribute to the decline of cognitive functions. The nutritional status has been added to these factors as contributing to cognitive function decline when presenting in COPD. OBJECTIVE: To evidence the relationship between cognitive decline, nutritional status and the clinical profile of patients admitted because of an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). METHODS: 110 subjects hospitalized because of COPD, divided in two groups according to their nutritional status and assessment of cognitive decline at admittance, nutritional status and clinical profile. RESULTS: Significant differences between groups concerning nutritional status in anthropometric variables (sex and IMC), functional ability (Barthel index and Daily Life Activities Scale), quality of life (Euroqol- 5D y SGRQ), sleep quality (Pittsburgh), mood (HAD) and cognitive decline (MoCa attention, MoCa abstraction). (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Cognitive function is affected in COPD patients with an altered nutritional status when compared to those with a normal nutritional status. The nutritional decline is a factor contributing to the impairment of cognitive functions in this kind of patients, particularly a decline in attention and abstraction ability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".