Identification of Five Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Subgroups with Different Prognoses in the ECLIPSE Cohort Using Cluster Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous disease that likely includes clinically relevant subgroups. OBJECTIVES: To identify subgroups of COPD in ECLIPSE (Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints) subjects using cluster analysis and to assess clinically meaningful outcomes of the clusters during 3 years of longitudinal follow-up. METHODS: Factor analysis was used to reduce 41 variables determined at recruitment in 2,164 patients with COPD to 13 main factors, and the variables with the highest loading were used for cluster analysis. Clusters were evaluated for their relationship with clinically meaningful outcomes during 3 years of follow-up. The relationships among clinical parameters were evaluated within clusters. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Five subgroups were distinguished using cross-sectional clinical features. These groups differed regarding outcomes. Cluster A included patients with milder disease and had fewer deaths and hospitalizations. Cluster B had less systemic inflammation at baseline but had notable changes in health status and emphysema extent. Cluster C had many comorbidities, evidence of systemic inflammation, and the highest mortality. Cluster D had low FEV1, severe emphysema, and the highest exacerbation and COPD hospitalization rate. Cluster E was intermediate for most variables and may represent a mixed group that includes further clusters. The relationships among clinical variables within clusters differed from that in the entire COPD population. CONCLUSIONS: Cluster analysis using baseline data in ECLIPSE identified five COPD subgroups that differ in outcomes and inflammatory biomarkers and show different relationships between clinical parameters, suggesting the clusters represent clinically and biologically different subtypes 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".