Cough in the community: a cross sectional survey and the relationship to gastrointestinal symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence and severity of chronic cough in the community is uncertain. In a large population of representative normal subjects, we explored the relationship between self-reported cough severity and frequency, and factors known to be related to the aetiology of chronic cough. In particular, we have examined the relative association between cough and symptoms of gastrointestinal disease. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was undertaken in 36 general practices with subjects randomly selected from practice computer databases. Baseline lifestyle and demographic characteristics were recorded. Participants were asked how often in the previous 2 months they had experienced bouts or spasms of coughing. Cough symptom status was dichotomised into symptomatic using a cut off of bouts or spasms of coughing at a frequency of between once a week and once a day or above. Gastrointestinal data were collected using validated methodology. RESULTS: Questionnaires were sent to 6416 subjects and 4003 (62%) responded. The prevalence of chronic cough was 12%, and was severe in 7%. Following multivariate analysis, regurgitation (OR 1.71; 99% CI 1.20 to 2.45) and irritable bowel syndrome (OR 2.00; 99% CI 1.47 to 2.72) were strong predictors of cough. Smoking (OR 1.61; 99% CI 1.18 to 2.19), declining social class (OR 1.63; 99% CI 1.04 to 2.57), and quality of life at baseline (OR 1.63; 99% CI 1.13 to 2.35) were also significantly associated. CONCLUSION: Chronic cough is a common symptom in the general population. Its strong association with gastrointestinal disease may have aetiological significance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".