Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and HIV: are we appropriately screening?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) represent a population that is at a higher risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this study, we sought to determine the effects of smoking on respiratory symptoms and diseases among HIV-positive patients and to determine if symptomatic patients are being appropriately screened for COPD. HIV-positive individuals completed a self-administered questionnaire. The effects of smoking on respiratory symptoms and diseases were reported as odds ratios (ORs). The COPD screening criteria were adapted from the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) guidelines. Two hundred and forty-seven participants were recruited. The median age was 49 years; 75% were male and 92% were on highly active antiretroviral therapy. Smokers represented 66% of the population. Smoking had a statistically significant effect on respiratory symptoms including wheeze (OR 4.8 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-14.2]), phlegm production (OR 4.9 [95% CI: 2.2-10.5]), cough (OR 7.0 [95% CI: 3.0-16.2]), and dyspnea (OR 7.2 [95% CI: 1.7-31.2]). Smoking had a higher odds of respiratory diseases including COPD (OR 4.9 [95% CI: 1.1-21.9]) and bronchitis (OR 3.8 [95% CI: 1.9-7.7]). Among HIV-positive smokers, 40% met the CTS screening criteria, while only 12% self-reported a diagnosis of COPD. The burden of smoking in the HIV population is significant. HIV-positive smokers are more likely to report both respiratory symptoms and diseases than HIV-positive non-smokers. A discrepancy exists between patients who met the CTS screening criteria and those who were diagnosed with COPD, raising the concern for under-recognition and under-diagnosis of COPD in this population.
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 | 0.010 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".