When Obesity and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Collide. Physiological and Clinical Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many parts of the world, the prevalence of both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and obesity is increasing at an alarming rate. Such patients tend to have greater respiratory symptoms, more severe restriction of daily activities, poorer health-related quality of life, and greater health care use than their nonobese counterparts. Physiologically, increasing weight gain is associated with lung volume reduction effects in both health and disease, and this should be considered when interpreting common pulmonary function tests where lung volume is the denominator, such as FEV1/FVC and the ratio of diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide to alveolar volume, or indeed when evaluating the physiological consequences of emphysema in obese individuals. Contrary to expectation, the presence of mild to moderate obesity in COPD appears to have little deleterious effect on respiratory mechanics and muscle function, exertional dyspnea, and peak symptom-limited oxygen uptake during cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Thus, in evaluating obese patients with COPD reporting activity restriction, additional nonpulmonary factors, such as increased metabolic loading, cardiocirculatory impairment, and musculoskeletal abnormalities, should be considered. Care should be taken to recognize the presence of obstructive sleep apnea in obese patients with COPD, as effective treatment of the former condition likely conveys an important survival advantage. Finally, morbid obesity in COPD presents significant challenges to effective management, given the combined effects of erosion of the ventilatory reserve and serious metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities that collectively predispose to an increased risk of death from respiratory failure.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".