Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and SocioEconomic Status: a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Along with age and sex, socioeconomic status is one of the most powerful determinants of health. We conducted a systematic review to examine the consistency and magnitude of the association between socioeconomic status and COPD health outcomes to determine the potential impact of SES disparity on the COPD population. METHODS: Electronic databases to October 2011 were searched for studies of adults who had or were at risk for COPD that quantified an association between a measure of socioeconomic status and at least one COPD health outcome. Two authors independently reviewed studies, assessed study quality, and for eligible studies, extracted data. RESULTS: Regardless of the population, socioeconomic status measure or COPD outcome examined, with few exceptions, consistent significant inverse associations between socioeconomic status and COPD outcomes were found. Most studies found that individuals of the lowest socioeconomic strata were at least twice as likely to have poor outcomes as those of the highest (range from no difference to 10-fold difference). CONCLUSIONS: Social and economic disadvantage appears to have a significant consistent impact on COPD mortality and morbidity. These findings point to the need for public health strategies and research to address socioeconomic status disparity in individuals with COPD.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".