Concurrent physician-diagnosed asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A population study of prevalence, incidence and mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a population-based cohort study to estimate trends in prevalence, incidence, and mortality of concurrent physician-diagnosed asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two validated health administrative case definitions were used to identify asthma and COPD among all individuals aged 35 years and older living in Ontario, Canada. Annual asthma, COPD, and concurrent asthma and COPD prevalence, incidence, and mortality, standardized for age and sex, were estimated, and compared from 2002 to 2012, using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Standardized prevalence of concurrent asthma and COPD increased by 10.5%, from 2.9% in 2002 to 3.2% in 2012 overall, but more prominently in women compared to men. Overall, standardized incidence decreased by16%, from 2.5 to 2.1 per 1000 individuals, but increased significantly in young adults. All-cause mortality among patients with concurrent asthma and COPD decreased by 11.2%, from 2.6% to 2.2%. Being diagnosed with both diseases was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality compared to asthma (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.50-1.58), but not compared to COPD (OR = 0.97, 0.96-0.98), except in young adults aged 35 to 49 years where people with asthma and COPD had higher mortality (OR = 1.21, 1.15-1.27). CONCLUSIONS: In a large North American population, the burden of concurrent physician-diagnosed asthma and COPD is increasing, particularly in women and young adults.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".