Risk factors of hospitalization and readmission of patients with COPD exacerbation--systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) exacerbations are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Data regarding factors which causes or prevents exacerbations is very limited. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the results from available studies to identify potential risk factors for hospital admission and/or re-admission among patients experiencing COPD exacerbations. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of the literature. Potential studies were identified by searching the electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane library, reference lists in trial reports, and other relevant articles. RESULTS: Seventeen articles that met the predefined inclusioncriteria were identified. Heterogeneity of study designs, risk factors and outcomes restrict the result to only a systematic review and precluded a formal meta-analysis. In this review, three predictive factors: previous hospital admission, dyspnea and oral corticosteroids were all found to be significant risk factors of readmissions and variables including using long term oxygen therapy, having low health status or poor health related quality of life and not having routine physical activity were all associated with an increased risk of both admission and readmission to hospital. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of potential modifiable factors that are independently associated with a higher risk of COPD exacerbation requiring admission/readmission to the hospital. Identifying these factors and the development of targeted interventions could potentially reduce the number and severity of such exacerbations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".