Early Detection and Impaired Quality of Life in COPD GOLD Stage 0: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pilot study aimed to identify early stages of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an urban population of smokers and ex-smokers using the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD 2001, 2003) classification guidelines and to assess the impact of early disease on quality of life. Smokers and ex-smokers of >or= 10 pack years and age >or= 50 years were recruited. After an initial telephone interview, eligible subjects completed a clinical assessment, spirometry tests, and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). A total of 244 subjects completed the study; 91 subjects (37%) were normal, 153 subjects (63%) met the criteria for GOLD stages 0 to III: 65 stage 0 (27%), 43 stage I (18%), 38 stage II (16%), 7 stage III (3%) and 0 in stage IV. The stage 0 patients were younger than any other COPD groups (p<0.0005), including normal subjects (55.5+/-5.4 years vs. 59.6+/-7.2 years; p=0.0005). The frequency of current smoking in stage 0 patients was greater than those in the normal category (80% vs. 33%; p<0.0001). There were significant impairments in quality of life measures between normal subjects and all GOLD stages (SGRQ total scores; p<0.0001) except for stage I (SGRQ total scores; p=0.1409). Subjects with COPD at GOLD stage 0 were markedly under-diagnosed. These subjects had a significant impairment in their health-related quality of life measures, were younger than other categories, and were mostly current smokers. Thus, detection of COPD at GOLD stage 0 may provide a unique opportunity for early intervention and smoking cessation and the removal of GOLD stage 0 from the 2006 update should be re-assessed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".