The Metabolic Syndrome in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the presence of the metabolic syndrome in COPD patients who participated in a cardiopulmonary rehabilitation program. The metabolic syndrome is characterized by the presence of abdominal obesity, atherogenic dyslipidemia, raised blood pressure, presence of insulin resistance, and prothrombotic and inflammatory states that predispose to cardiovascular diseases. METHODS: Thirty-eight COPD patients (age: 66 +/- 7 years, [mean +/- SD], FEV1: 43 +/- 16% predicted) and 34 control participants matched for age and gender are included in this study. The criteria for the identification of the metabolic syndrome include 3 or more of the following features: abdominal obesity (waist circumference: > 102 cm in men, > 88 cm in women), triglycerides levels (>or= 1.69 mmol/L), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (< 1.0 mmol/L in men, < 1.3 mmol/L in women), blood pressure (>or= 130/ >or= 85 mm Hg), and fasting glucose levels (>or= 6.1 mmol/L). RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of COPD patients and 21% of control participants presented 3 or more determinants of the metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of metabolic syndrome is frequent in patients with COPD who participated in a cardiopulmonary program. Hence, this population should be considered for screening for the metabolic syndrome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".