Is <scp>COPD</scp> associated with increased mortality and morbidity in hospitalized pneumonia? A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review aimed to investigate whether chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for cohort studies and case-control studies investigating the impact of COPD on CAP. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and need for mechanical ventilation. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Mantel-Haenszel method and inverse variance method were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (MD), respectively. Eleven studies (nine cohort studies and two case-control studies), involving 257 958 patients, were included. The overall methodological quality was high. COPD was not associated with increased mortality in hospitalized CAP patients (RR, 1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92-1.56; P = 0.19; I(2) = 55%) in cohort studies, and was associated with reduced mortality in case-control studies (RR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.90; P < 0.0001; I(2) = 80%). COPD was not associated with longer hospital stay (MD, 0.11; 95% CI: -0.42 to 0.64; P = 0.68; I(2) = 21%), more frequent ICU admission (RR, 0.97; 95% CI: 0.70-1.35; P = 0.87; I(2) = 65%), and more need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.16; P = 0.44; I(2) = 4%).The current available evidence indicates that COPD may not be associated with increased mortality and morbidity in patients hospitalized with CAP. This conclusion should be re-evaluated by prospective population-based cohort studies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".