COPD in a Population-Based Sample of Never-Smokers: Interactions among Sex, Gender, and Race
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This observational epidemiological study investigates sex/gender and racial differences in prevalence of COPD among never-smokers. Data were derived from the 2012 Center for Disease Control's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The sample consisted of 129,535 non-Hispanic whites and blacks 50 years of age and older who had never smoked. Descriptive and multivariable analyses were conducted, with the latter using a series of logistic regression models predicting COPD status by sex/gender and race, adjusting for age, height, socioeconomic position (SEP), number of household members, marital status, and health insurance coverage. Black women have the highest prevalence of COPD (7.0%), followed by white women (5.2%), white men (2.9%), and black men (2.4%). Women have significantly higher odds of COPD than men. When adjusting for SEP, black and white women have comparably higher odds of COPD than white men (black women OR = 1.66; 99% CI = 1.46, 1.88; white women OR = 1.49; 99% CI = 1.37, 1.63), while black men have significantly lower odds (OR = 0.62; 99% CI = 0.49, 0.79). This research provides evidence that racial inequalities in COPD (or lack thereof) may be related to SEP.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".