Cognitive impairment and clinical characteristics in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to investigate (1) the relationship between cognitive impairment (CI) and disease severity and (2) the potential differences in exercise performance, daily activities, health status, and psychological well-being between patients with and without CI. Clinically stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, referred for pulmonary rehabilitation, underwent a neuropsychological examination. Functional exercise capacity (6-minute walk test [6MWT]), daily activities (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure [COPM]), health status (COPD Assessment Test [CAT]) and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire-COPD specific [SGRQ-C]), and psychological well-being (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS], Beck Depression Inventory [BDI], and Symptom Checklist 90 [SCL-90]) were compared between patients with and without CI. Of 183 COPD patients (mean age 63.6 (9.4) years, FEV 1 54.8 (23.0%) predicted), 76 (41.5%) patients had CI. The prevalence was comparable across Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades 1–4 (44.8%, 40.0%, 41.0%, 43.5%, respectively, p = 0.97) and GOLD groups A–D (50.0%, 44.7%, 33.3%, 40.2%, respectively, p = 0.91). Patients with and without CI were comparable for demographics, smoking status, FEV 1 % predicted, mMRC, 6MWT, COPM, CAT, HADS, BDI, and SCL-90 scores. Clinical characteristics of COPD patients with and without CI are comparable. Assessment of CI in COPD, thus, requires an active case-finding approach.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".