Nutritional assessment and therapy in COPD: a European Respiratory Society statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutrition and metabolism have been the topic of extensive scientific research in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but clinical awareness of the impact dietary habits, nutritional status and nutritional interventions may have on COPD incidence, progression and outcome is limited. A multidisciplinary Task Force was created by the European Respiratory Society to deliver a summary of the evidence and description of current practice in nutritional assessment and therapy in COPD, and to provide directions for future research. Task Force members conducted focused reviews of the literature on relevant topics, advised by a methodologist. It is well established that nutritional status, and in particular abnormal body composition, is an important independent determinant of COPD outcome. The Task Force identified different metabolic phenotypes of COPD as a basis for nutritional risk profile assessment that is useful in clinical trial design and patient counselling. Nutritional intervention is probably effective in undernourished patients and probably most when combined with an exercise programme. Providing evidence of cost-effectiveness of nutritional intervention is required to support reimbursement and thus increase access to nutritional intervention. Overall, the evidence indicates that a well-balanced diet is beneficial to all COPD patients, not only for its potential pulmonary benefits, but also for its proven benefits in metabolic and cardiovascular risk.
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 | 0.043 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".