Time course and pattern of COPD exacerbation onset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The natural history and time course of the onset of exacerbation events of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is incompletely understood. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 212 patients with COPD was monitored using daily symptom diaries for a median of 2.8 years to characterise the time course of COPD exacerbation onset. Decision rules based on weighted self-reported symptoms were used to define opening and closing of exacerbation events. Event time intervals were analysed and logistic regression was used to determine the effects of patient covariates on exacerbation events. RESULTS: Patients recorded 4439 episodes of worsening respiratory symptoms from baseline; 2444 (55%) events resolved spontaneously and 1995 (45%) resulted in a COPD exacerbation. In 1115 of the 1995 COPD exacerbations (56%) the onset was sudden and the exacerbation threshold was crossed on the same day symptoms began. In contrast, 44% of exacerbations were characterised by gradual onset of symptoms (median duration from symptom onset to exacerbation 4 days). Patients who experienced sudden onset exacerbations had greater mean daily symptom scores (7.86 vs. 6.55 points, p<0.001), greater peak symptom scores (10.7 vs. 10.2 points, p=0.003), earlier peak symptoms (4.5 vs. 8.0 days, p<0.001) and shorter median recovery times back to baseline health status (11 vs. 13 days, p<0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that gradual onset exacerbations were statistically associated with a longer duration of exacerbation recovery (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.54, p=0.010). CONCLUSIONS: COPD exacerbations exhibit two distinct patterns-sudden and gradual onset. Sudden onset exacerbations are associated with increased respiratory symptoms but shorter exacerbation recovery times.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".