The ADO Index as a Predictor of Two-Year Mortality in General Practice-Based Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing prediction models for mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients have not yet been validated in primary care, which is where the majority of patients receive care. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to validate the ADO (age, dyspnoea, airflow obstruction) index as a predictor of 2-year mortality in 2 general practice-based COPD cohorts. METHODS: Six hundred and forty-six patients with COPD with GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) stages I-IV were enrolled by their general practitioners and followed for 2 years. The ADO regression equation was used to predict a 2-year risk of all-cause mortality in each patient and this risk was compared with the observed 2-year mortality. Discrimination and calibration were assessed as well as the strength of association between the 15-point ADO score and the observed 2-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Fifty-two (8.1%) patients died during the 2-year follow-up period. Discrimination with the ADO index was excellent with an area under the curve of 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.84]. Overall, the predicted and observed risks matched well and visual inspection revealed no important differences between them across 10 risk classes (p = 0.68). The odds ratio for death per point increase according to the ADO index was 1.50 (95% CI 1.31-1.71). CONCLUSIONS: The ADO index showed excellent prediction properties in an out-of-population validation carried out in COPD patients from primary care settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".