Gender Differences in Emergency Department Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although more men are diagnosed as having chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), its prevalence is increasing among women. Little is known about gender differences in exacerbations of COPD. The objective of this study was to determine if acute presentation, management, and outcomes differ among men and women seeking care in the emergency department (ED) for exacerbation of COPD. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of ED patients aged 55 years or older who presented with an exacerbation of COPD. Subjects underwent structured interviews in the ED and two weeks later. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 397 subjects with COPD, of whom 52% were women. Self-report of COPD only tended to be more common among men (61% of men vs. 52% of women), while mixed COPD/asthma tended to be more common among women (39% vs. 48%; p = 0.10). Despite reporting similar chronic symptom severity, women were less likely than men to use anticholinergic agents before their ED visit (59% vs. 69%; p = 0.04). During the exacerbation, women initiated less home therapy and were less likely to seek emergency care within the first 24 hours of symptom onset (25% vs. 36%; p = 0.01). Although ED care and disposition were similar, post-ED outcomes differed. At two-week follow-up, men were more likely to report an ongoing exacerbation (42% vs. 31%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Men and women who present to the ED for treatment of an exacerbation of COPD have substantial differences in long-term medication use, self-treatment during exacerbation, delay in emergency care, and post-ED outcomes. Further studies are warranted to confirm and explain these gender-related differences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 teacher head, 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".