Incidence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in a Cohort of Young Adults According to the Presence of Chronic Cough and Phlegm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The few prospective studies aimed at assessing the incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in relation to the presence of chronic cough/phlegm have produced contrasting results. OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence of COPD in a cohort of young adults and to test whether chronic cough/phlegm and dyspnea are independent predictors of COPD. METHODS: An international cohort of 5,002 subjects without asthma (ages 20-44 yr) with normal lung function (FEV(1)/FVC ratio >/= 70%) from 12 countries was followed from 1991-2002 in the frame of the European Community Respiratory Health Survey II. Incident cases of COPD were those who had an FEV(1)/FVC ratio less than 70% at the end of the follow-up, but did not report having had a doctor diagnose asthma during the follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: The incidence rate of COPD was 2.8 cases/1,000/yr (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-3.3). Chronic cough/phlegm was an independent and statistically significant predictor of COPD (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.17-2.93) after adjusting for smoking habits and other potential confounders, whereas dyspnea was not associated with the disease (IRR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.64-1.50). Subjects who reported chronic cough/phlegm both at baseline and at the follow-up had a nearly threefold-increased risk of developing COPD with respect to asymptomatic subjects (IRR = 2.88; 95% CI, 1.44-5.79). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of COPD is substantial even in young adults. The presence of chronic cough/phlegm identifies a subgroup of subjects with a high risk of developing COPD, independently of smoking habits.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".