The Impact Of Body Mass Index On Inpatient‐ Versus Outpatient‐Treated Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increased body weight has been associated with worse prognoses for many chronic diseases; however, this relationship is less clear in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with underweight patients experiencing higher morbidity than normal or overweight patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) on the risk for COPD exacerbations. METHODS: The present study included 115 patients with stable COPD (53% women; mean [± SD] age 67±8 years). Height and weight were measured to calculate BMI. Patients were followed for a mean of 1.8±0.8 years to assess the prospective risk of inpatient-treated exacerbations and outpatient-treated exacerbations, all of which were verified by chart review. RESULTS: Cox regression models revealed that underweight patients were at greater risk for inhospital-treated exacerbations (RR 2.93 [95% CI 1.27 to 6.76) relative to normal weight patients. However, overweight (RR 0.59 [95% CI 0.33 to 1.57) and obese (RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.53 to 1.86]) patients did not differ from normal weight patients. All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, length of diagnosis, smoking pack-years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and time between recruitment and last exacerbation. BMI did not influence the risk of out-of-hospital exacerbations. CONCLULSIONS: The present study showed that underweight patients were at greater risk for inhospital exacerbations. However, BMI did not appear to be a risk factor for out-of-hospital exacerbations. This suggests that the BMI-exacerbation link may differ according to the nature of the exacerbation, the mechanisms for which are not yet known.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".