Cognitive impairment in patients hospitalized with acute COPD exacerbation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cognitive impairment is associated with increased mortality and disability; however, it remains poorly understood in COPD. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the level of cognitive impairment in COPD patients hospitalized due to acute exacerbation. Methods: COPD exacerbated patients were included in this study. The level of cognitive impairment was measured with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA). Results: A sample of 200 patients hospitalized with acute COPD exacerbation was included in this study, mean age 71.16 ± 10.2 year were enrolled in the study. The punctuations obtained in MOCA subscales are shown in table 1. Table 1. Cognitive impairment values MEAN ± SD RANGE MOCA naming 2.03 ± 0.8 [0,3] MOCA attention 3.65 ± 1.9 [0,7] MOCA language 1.15 ± 0.9 [0,3] MOCA abstraction 0.61 ± 0.7 [0,2] MOCA delayed recall 1.07 ± 1.2 [0,3] MOCA orientation 4.84 ± 1.2 [2,6] MOCA visuospatial 2.23 ± 1.8 [0,5] MOCA memory 0.81 ± 0.39 [0,1] MOCA TOTAL 16.64 ± 6.4 [4,27] MOCA: montreal cognitive assessment. Conclusion: Results obtained shown relevant poor values in abstraction and memory subscales. Our sample had shown a low total score in MOCA that means high cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".