Prevalence of dyspepsia in COPD patients: Experience in a large Canadian cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been shown that dyspepsia can be associated with COPD and in some cases closely linked to COPD exacerbations. The association of dyspepsia with COPD severity (FEV1, respiratory failure) and medications is not well described. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of dyspepsia in a large canadian COPD cohort and to identify risk factors. We retrospectively reviewed files of 1247 COPD patients. We classified patients as dyspepsia-positive (D+: 513 patients or 41%) or dyspepsia-negative (D-: 734 patients or 59%). Mean age was similar in D+ and D- (71,6 y/o versus 70,2) and we found no difference in FEV1 (44,97% versus 45,07%, p>0,05). Dyspepsia was more frequent in female patients (54,4% versus 45,4%, p<0,02) and in patients receiving home oxygen therapy (35,1% versus 28,6%, p<0,02). Active smoking was inversely related to dyspepsia (31,8% in D+ versus 41,0% in D-, p<0,001). Frequent acute exacerbations (> 1/year) was also associated with dyspepsia (80,3% versus 71,7%, p<0,001). Finally, dyspepsia was positively related to cardio-vascular and osteoporotic comorbidities (86,7% versus 68,4%, p< 0,001). No relation was found with medications use, notably inhaled corticosteroids. Conclusion: As reported by other publications, our retrospective study noted a high prevalence of dyspepsia in COPD patients and there was no relation with disease severity (expressed by the FEV1). Female sex, frequent acute exacerbations and comorbidities appear to be associated with dyspepsia. Surprisingly, we found a negative association with smoking status. Dyspepsia treatment consequences should now be addressed closely (QOL, exacerbations, FEV1 decline).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".