Emergency Department Management of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the Elderly: The Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine adherence of emergency department (ED) management of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to current treatment guidelines. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study, as part of the Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration. SETTING: The study was performed at 29 EDs in 15 U.S. states and three Canadian provinces. PARTICIPANTS: ED patients, aged 55 and older, who presented with COPD exacerbation and underwent a structured interview in the ED and another by telephone 2 weeks later. MEASUREMENTS: Adherence of ED management of COPD exacerbation to that recommended in current treatment guidelines. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 397 subjects, of whom 224 (56%) reported only COPD and 173 (44%) reported asthma and COPD. The average age was 70. Most (80%) patients had used rescue medications in the 6 hours before seeking emergency care. Only 31% were evaluated using spirometry and 48% using arterial blood gas measurement. ED treatment included inhaled short-acting beta-agonists for 91% of patients, inhaled anticholinergics for 77%, methylxanthines for 0.3%, systemic corticosteroids for 62%, and antibiotics for 28%. More than half the patients required hospitalization. At 2-week follow-up, 43% of patients reported a relapse event or ongoing exacerbation. Overall, adherence to national and international guidelines was low. CONCLUSION: Important differences exist between guideline recommendations and actual ED management of COPD exacerbations in older adults. Outcomes after ED treatment are poor and may be related to these shortcomings in quality of care. Better adherence to guideline recommendations when caring for elderly patients with COPD exacerbations may lead to improved clinical outcomes and better resource usage.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".