Cluster Analysis in Patients with GOLD 1 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that heterogeneity exists within the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 1 spirometric category and that different subgroups could be identified within this GOLD category. METHODS: Pre-randomization study participants from two clinical trials were symptomatic/asymptomatic GOLD 1 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and healthy controls. A hierarchical cluster analysis used pre-randomization demographics, symptom scores, lung function, peak exercise response and daily physical activity levels to derive population subgroups. RESULTS: Considerable heterogeneity existed for clinical variables among patients with GOLD 1 COPD. All parameters, except forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC), had considerable overlap between GOLD 1 COPD and controls. Three-clusters were identified: cluster I (18 [15%] COPD patients; 105 [85%] controls); cluster II (45 [80%] COPD patients; 11 [20%] controls); and cluster III (22 [92%] COPD patients; 2 [8%] controls). Apart from reduced diffusion capacity and lower baseline dyspnea index versus controls, cluster I COPD patients had otherwise preserved lung volumes, exercise capacity and physical activity levels. Cluster II COPD patients had a higher smoking history and greater hyperinflation versus cluster I COPD patients. Cluster III COPD patients had reduced physical activity versus controls and clusters I and II COPD patients, and lower FEV1/FVC versus clusters I and II COPD patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results emphasize heterogeneity within GOLD 1 COPD, supporting an individualized therapeutic approach to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov. NCT01360788 and NCT01072396.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".