The Association Between Rate and Severity of Exacerbations in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: An Application of a Joint Frailty-Logistic Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exacerbations are a hallmark of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Evidence suggests the presence of substantial between-individual variability (heterogeneity) in exacerbation rates. The question of whether individuals vary in their tendency towards experiencing severe (versus mild) exacerbations, or whether there is an association between exacerbation rate and severity, has not yet been studied. We used data from the MACRO Study, a 1-year randomized trial of the use of azithromycin for prevention of COPD exacerbations (United States and Canada, 2006-2010; n = 1,107, mean age = 65.2 years, 59.1% male). A parametric frailty model was combined with a logistic regression model, with bivariate random effects capturing heterogeneity in rate and severity. The average rate of exacerbation was 1.53 episodes/year, with 95% of subjects having a model-estimated rate of 0.47-4.22 episodes/year. The overall ratio of severe exacerbations to total exacerbations was 0.22, with 95% of subjects having a model-estimated ratio of 0.04-0.60. We did not confirm an association between exacerbation rate and severity (P = 0.099). A unified model, implemented in standard software, could estimate joint heterogeneity in COPD exacerbation rate and severity and can have applications in similar contexts where inference on event time and intensity is considered. We provide SAS code (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) and a simulated data set to facilitate further uses of this method.
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 | 0.026 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".