Exacerbation-like respiratory symptoms in individuals without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Exacerbations of COPD are defined clinically by worsening of chronic respiratory symptoms. Chronic respiratory symptoms are common in the general population. There are no data on the frequency of exacerbation-like events in individuals without spirometric evidence of COPD. AIMS: To determine the occurrence of 'exacerbation-like' events in individuals without airflow limitation, their associated risk factors, healthcare utilisation and social impacts. METHOD: We analysed the cross-sectional data from 5176 people aged 40 years and older who participated in a multisite, population-based study on lung health. The study cohort was stratified into spirometrically defined COPD (post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC < 0.7) and non-COPD (post bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ≥ 0.7 and without self-reported doctor diagnosis of airway diseases) subgroups and then into those with and without respiratory 'exacerbation-like' events in the past year. RESULTS: Individuals without COPD had half the frequency of 'exacerbation-like' events compared with those with COPD. In the non-COPD group, the independent associations with 'exacerbations' included female gender, presence of wheezing, the use of respiratory medications and self-perceived poor health. In the non-COPD group, those with exacerbations were more likely than those without exacerbations to have poorer health-related quality of life (12-item Short-Form Health Survey), miss social activities (58.5% vs 18.8%), miss work for income (41.5% vs 17.3%) and miss housework (55.6% vs 16.5%), p<0.01 to <0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Events similar to exacerbations of COPD can occur in individuals without COPD or asthma and are associated with significant health and socioeconomic outcomes. They increase the respiratory burden in the community and may contribute to the false-positive diagnosis of asthma or COPD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".