Outcomes and health‐related quality of life following hospitalization for an acute exacerbation of COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand the outcomes for patients admitted to hospital for an acute exacerbation of COPD, and to determine the factors influencing quality of life and health service utilization of patients with COPD. METHODOLOGY: Hospital outcomes of 282 patients with moderate and severe COPD, for an acute exacerbation, were retrospectively evaluated. After 24 months of follow up, health-related quality of life (QoL) and health service utilization (emergency room (ER) visit and readmission) in 54 patients admitted previously, were surveyed by questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 282 COPD patients admitted for an acute exacerbation, 28 patients (9.9%) died during hospitalization, 241 patients (85.5%) were discharged home, and only 13 patients (4.6%) needed long-term care facilities. Although over 50% of the patients had survived over 2 years after discharge, their QoL was poor. Patients who frequently went to the ER or were admitted, were those with poor QoL, severe dyspnoea and frequent exacerbation. COPD exacerbation and dyspnoea were the main factors influencing QoL of the patients. Age, comorbidity, QoL, FEV1, frequency of COPD exacerbation, long-term oxygen therapy, and family doctor were the factors determining the likelihood of patients visiting the ER. Frequency of COPD exacerbation, family doctor and living alone were the factors determining which patients were likely to be admitted to hospital. CONCLUSION: The outcomes and QoL of patients admitted for an acute exacerbation of COPD were poor. The major factors influencing QoL were frequency of COPD exacerbation and severity of dyspnoea. Improvement of social and medical networks (e.g. reducing the number of patients living alone and providing family doctors for patients) may reduce health care service utilization.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".