Prevalence and Determinants of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in Bangladesh.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: There is a paucity of population-based data on COPD prevalence and its determinants in Bangladesh. OBJECTIVE: To measure COPD prevalence and socioeconomic and lifestyle determinants among ≥40 years Bangladeshi adults. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, we measured lung function of 3744 randomly selected adults ≥40 years from rural and urban areas in Bangladesh, using a handheld spirometer. COPD was defined according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria as post-bronchodilator ratio of Forced Expiratory Volume in 1st second (FEV1) to Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) < 0.7. In addition, COPD was also assessed by the lower limit of normal (LLN) threshold defined as lower fifth percentile for the predicted FEV1/FVC. RESULTS: The prevalence of COPD was 13.5% by GOLD criteria and 10.3% by LLN criteria. Prevalence of COPD was higher among rural than urban residents and in males than females. More than half of the COPD cases were stage II COPD by both criteria. Milder cases (Stages I and II) were over estimated by the GOLD fixed criteria, but more severe cases (Stages III and IV) were similarly classified. In multiple logistic regression analysis, older age, male sex, illiteracy, underweight, history of smoking (both current and former), history of asthma and solid fuel use were significant predictors of COPD. CONCLUSION: COPD is a highly prevalent and grossly underdiagnosed public health problem in Bangladeshi adults aged 40 years or older. Illiteracy, smoking and biomass fuel burning are modifiable determinants of 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".