Impact of Comorbidities on Mortality in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Comorbidities significantly influence the clinical course of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, their prognostic impact is not fully understood. We therefore aimed to determine the impact of comorbidities, as individual and as whole, on survival in IPF. METHODS: The database of a tertiary referral centre for interstitial lung diseases was reviewed for comorbidities, their treatments, their frequency and survival in IPF patients. RESULTS: 272 patients were identified of which 12% had no, 58% 1-3 and 30% 4-7 comorbidities, mainly cardiovascular, pulmonary and oncologic comorbidities. Median survival according to the frequency of comorbidities differed significantly with 66 months for patients without comorbidities, 48 months when 1-3 comorbidities were reported and 35 months when 4-7 comorbidities were prevalent (p = 0.004). A multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses identified other cardiac diseases and lung cancer as significant predictors of death, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and diastolic dysfunction had a significant positive impact on survival. A significant impact of comorbidities associated therapies on survival was not discovered. This included the use of proton pump inhibitors at baseline, which was not associated with a survival benefit (p = 0.718). We also established a predictive tool for highly prevalent comorbidities, termed IPF comorbidome which demonstrates a new relationship of IPF and comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Comorbidities are frequent in IPF patients. Some comorbidities, especially lung cancer, mainly influence survival in IPF, while others such as GERD may inherit a more favourable effect. Moreover, their cumulative incidence impacts survival.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".