Circadian‐Rhythm Differences among Emergency Department Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was determine whether patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation who present to the emergency department (ED) during the night (00:00 to 07:59 h) vs. other times of the day have more severe COPD exacerbation, require more intensive treatment, and have worse clinical outcomes. A multicenter cohort study was completed involving 29 EDs in the United States and Canada. Using a standard protocol, consecutive ED patients with COPD exacerbation were interviewed, and their charts were reviewed. Of 582 patients enrolled, 52% were women, and the median age was 71 yrs (interquartile range, 64-77 yrs). Nighttime patients (15% of cohort) did not differ from patients presenting at other times except that they were less likely to have private insurance, more likely to have a history of corticosteroid use, and have a shorter duration of symptoms exacerbation. Except for a few features indicative of more severe COPD exacerbation (such as higher respiratory rate at ED presentation, greater likelihood of receiving noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, and increased risk of endotracheal intubation), nighttime patients did not differ from other patients with respect to ED management. Nighttime patients were approximately three-fold more likely to be intubated in the ED (odds ratio, 3.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-10.9). There were no day-night differences regarding ED disposition and post-ED relapse. Except for some features indicating more severe exacerbation, nighttime ED patients had similar chronic COPD characteristics, received similar treatments in the ED, and had similar clinical outcomes compared with patients presenting to the ED at other times of the day.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".