MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298009293

[Assessment of cognition and associated factors in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].

2014· article· en· W2298009293 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicInflammation biomarkers and pathways
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCOPDMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPulmonary diseaseInternal medicineHypercapniaMedicineHypoxemiaSubgroup analysisSignificant differenceCognitionGold standard (test)Pulmonary function testingCardiologyGastroenterologyCognitive impairmentDiseaseRespiratory systemConfidence intervalPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore and analyze the cognitive function in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: The cognition differences between patients with COPD and healthy subjects were analyzed by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). GOLD grade, PaO₂, PaCO₂, the education degree and the age were included as associated factors. The correlation between those factors with cognition were analyzed. RESULTS: The MoCA in patients with COPD was 20.6 ± 2.3, and that in healthy subjects was 25.3 ± 1.7; the difference between the 2 groups being significant (P < 0.01). The MoCA was 22.4 ± 0.8 in patients with GOLD grade I disease, 21.7 ± 1.0 in grade II, 20.2 ± 1.2 in grade III, and 19.1 ± 1.20 in grade IV diseases; the difference among the 4 subgroups being significant (F = 31.69, P < 0.05). The MoCA in GOLD grade I was higher than that in GOLD grade II, but the difference did not reach significance (P > 0.05). The MoCA of GOLD grade II was higher than that in GOLD grade III (P < 0.05) , and the MoCA of GOLD grade III was higher than that GOLD grade IV (P < 0.05). The MoCA in non-hypoxemia subgroup and hypoxemia subgroup was 22.2 ± 1.1 and 19.8 ± 1.1, respectively (P < 0.05) , while the MoCA in hypercapnia subgroup and non-hypercapnia subgroup was 20.0 ± 1.3 and 22.3 ± 1.0 respectively (P < 0.05). By regression analysis, the score of MoCA was correlated positively to education degree (Standard B1 = 0.134, P < 0.01), GOLD grade(Standard B2 = 0.351, P < 0.01) and PaO₂(Standard B3 = 0.305, P < 0.01), while the score of MoCA was correlated negatively to age(Standard B4 = -0.146, P < 0.01) and PaCO₂(Standard B5 = -0.145, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The MoCA score in patients with COPD was lower than that in healthy people. Lower MoCA score was found in patients with severe COPD. The MoCA scores in both hypoxemia subgroup and hypercapnia subgroup were lower. The cognitive dysfunction in patients with stable COPD was positively correlated with education degree, GOLD grade, and PaO₂, but negatively with age and PaCO₂.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.175 · 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