MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148691398 · doi:10.1139/y04-116

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a novel risk factor for cardiovascular disease

2005· review· en· W2148691398 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Don D. Sin, S. F. Paul Man

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCOPDMedicineDiseasePulmonary diseaseCause of deathRisk factorInternal medicinePopulationMortality rateIntensive care medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in Canada and elsewhere. It affects 5% of all adult Canadians and is the fourth leading cause of death. Interestingly, the leading causes of hospitalizations and mortality among COPD patients are cardiovascular events. In the Lung Health Study, over 5 800 patients with mild to moderate COPD were studied. Forty-two to 48% of all hospitalizations that occurred over the study's 5-year follow-up period were related to cardiovascular complications. Various population-based studies suggest that independent of smoking, age, and gender, COPD increases the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality twofold. Alarmingly, some bronchodilators, which are commonly used to treat symptoms in COPD, may increase the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and even mortality among COPD patients. In this paper, we discuss the epidemiologic evidence linking COPD and cardiovascular events as well as the potential mechanism(s) which may be responsible for this association.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations114
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207