Douleur et exacerbation de Bronchopneumopathie Chronique Obstructive : étude descriptive et comparative à 30 jours (étude Morpho-COPD 1b, résultats préliminaires)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic pain is common in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The pain intensity may increase during acute episodes of exacerbations. The aim of this cohort study was to compare the pain during exacerbation and stable COPD. Methods: Patients in acute exacerbation of COPD were included in the emergency department. The intensity and characteristics of pain were evaluated from the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Assessment of respiratory status, anxiety and depression, and clinical and biological data, defining the severity of exacerbation, were also collected. A 30-day follow-up visit, after a return to the stable state of COPD, allowed the realization of Respiratory Functional Exploration and the same questionnaires. Results: Data from 21 patients enrolled between 01.12.2015 and 01.07.2016, were studied in this interim analysis. The pain intensity, measured by the total score of the SF-MPQ, was higher in exacerbation than stable phase: 19 [9-31] vs. 5 [0-12] (p = 0.001). The descriptive characteristics and location of pain were different between the two phases. Dyspnea and anxiety during exacerbations were correlated with pain intensity (respectively, r = 0.529; p = 0.014 and r = 0.473; p = 0.030). However, no correlation was found between the pain and the severity of the exacerbation or severity of COPD. Conclusion: These results emphasize the need for specific treatments of pain patients during exacerbations of COPD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".