Prevalence, Risk Factors, Activity Limitation and Health Care Utilization of an Obese Population‐Based Sample with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To estimate the prevalence and determine the risk factors and health associations among individuals with combined chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and obesity. METHODS: Canadian national health survey data from 1994 to 2007 (n=650,000) were used. The presence of COPD was based on health professional-diagnosed self-report. The presence of obesity, defined by body mass index ≥ 30 kg⁄m2, was identified using self-reported and measured height and weight. Hospitalization, homecare use, physical activity assessments and socioeconomic data were all self-reported. RESULTS: In 2005, the prevalence of obesity in COPD (n=3470) and non-COPD (n=92,237) individuals was 24.6% and 17.1%, respectively (P<0.0001). In contrast to the non-COPD group, in which obesity prevalence increased by 38% over 14 years, obesity prevalence increased by only 5% in people with COPD over this same time period. Female sex was the only independent risk factor for obesity in COPD. Previous smoking, residing in Atlantic Canada and the Territories, and low education level were independent risk factors for obesity in the non-COPD group, but not in the COPD group. The odds of physical activity limitation and health care utilization were significantly higher among obese individuals with COPD compared with nonobese COPD and obese non-COPD groups. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of obesity was higher in COPD, and exceeded that of the larger non-COPD group throughout the 13-year observation period. The presence of obesity in COPD was associated with significantly higher risk of severe activity limitation and increased health care utilization. The combination of obesity and COPD has major implications for health care delivery that has not been previously appreciated.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".