Peripheral Artery Disease and Its Clinical Relevance in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the COPD and Systemic Consequences–Comorbidities Network Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Knowledge about the prevalence of objectively assessed peripheral artery disease (PAD) and its clinical relevance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is scarce. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to: (1) assess the prevalence of PAD in COPD compared with distinct control groups; and (2) study the association between PAD and functional capacity as well as health status. METHODS: The ankle-brachial index was used to diagnose PAD (ankle-brachial index ≤ 0.9). The 6-minute-walk distance, health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire), COPD Assessment Test, and EuroQol-5-Dimensions were assessed in patients enrolled in the German COPD and Systemic Consequences-Comorbidities Network cohort study. Control groups were derived from the Study of Health in Pomerania. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 2,088 patients with COPD (61.1% male; mean [SD] age, 65.3 [8.2] years, GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) stages I-IV: 9.4, 42.5, 37.5, and 10.5%, respectively) were included, of which 184 patients (8.8%; GOLD stage I-IV: 5.1, 7.4, 11.1, and 9.5%, respectively, vs. 5.9% in patients with GOLD stage 0 in the COPD and Systemic Consequences-Comorbidities Network) had PAD. In the Study of Health in Pomerania, PAD ranged from 1.8 to 4.2%. Patients with COPD with PAD had a significantly shorter 6-minute-walk distance (356 [108] vs. 422 [103] m, P < 0.001) and worse health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire: 49.7 [20.1] vs. 42.7 [20.0] points, P < 0.001; COPD Assessment Test: 19.6 [7.4] vs. 17.9 [7.4] points, P = 0.004; EuroQol-5-Dimensions visual analog scale: 51.2 [19.0] vs. 57.2 [19.6], P < 0.001). Differences remained significant after correction for several confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with COPD, 8.8% were diagnosed with PAD, which is higher than the prevalence in control subjects without COPD. PAD was associated with a clinically relevant reduction in functional capacity and health status.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".