Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the comparative impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) between women and men and about women's response to pulmonary rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: To compare lung function, disability, mortality and response to pulmonary rehabilitation between women and men with COPD. METHODS: In the present retrospective study, 68 women (mean age 62.5+/-8.9 years) and 168 men (mean age 66.3+/-8.4 years) were evaluated by means of pulmonary function testing and an incremental symptom-limited cycle exercise test. Forty women and 84 men also participated in a 12-week pulmonary rehabilitation program. A 6 min walking test and the chronic respiratory questionnaire were used to assess the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation. Survival status was also evaluated. RESULTS: Compared with men, women had a smaller tobacco exposure (31+/-24 versus 48+/-27 pack-years, P<0.05), displayed better forced expiratory volume in 1 s (44+/-13 versus 39+/-14 % predicted, P<0.05), a higher functional residual capacity (161+/-37 versus 149+/-36 % predicted, P<0.05) and total lung capacity (125+/-20 versus 115+/-19 % predicted, P<0.001). Peak oxygen consumption was not different between women and men when expressed in predicted values but lower in women when expressed in absolute values. Pulmonary rehabilitation resulted in significant improvements in 6 min walking test and quality of life in both sexes, but women had a greater improvement in chronic respiratory questionnaire dyspnea. Survival status was similar between sexes, but predictors of mortality were different between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Women may be more susceptible to COPD than men. The clinical expression of COPD may differ between sexes with greater degree of hyperinflation in women, who also benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".