Comparative study on medical utilization and costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with good lung function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are underdiagnosed and undertreated due to the asymptomatic nature of the disease. Previous studies on patients with mild COPD have focused on symptomatic patients. Therefore, in this study, we evaluated the treatment status of patients with early COPD in Korea. Materials and methods: We compared hospital visits, medical costs per person, and COPD medication use by patients with COPD screened from the general population and COPD cohort patients. Patients with COPD aged ≥40 years with the value of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) ≥60% were selected from the 2007 to 2012 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) data. Data including the number of outpatient clinic visits, admission to hospitals, COPD-related medications, and medical costs were obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service and were compared with the data of patients with COPD with FEV 1 ≥60% from the Korean COPD Subtype Study (KOCOSS) cohort. Results: Based on EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire index scores of 0.9±0.14, we found that patients with COPD from the KNHANES group showed few symptoms compared to those from the KOCOSS cohort. In 2007, among the patients with COPD with an FEV 1 value of ≥60%, only 3.6% from the KNHANES group and 30% from the KOCOSS cohort visited medical facilities. Total medical cost per person per year increased from 264.37±663.41 US Dollars (USD) in 2007 to 797.00±2,724.21 USD in 2012 for the KNHANES group. In 2012, only 20.7% of the patients from KNHANES database received long-acting muscarinic agonists (LAMA), whereas 78.7% of the patients from KOCOSS database received LAMA. Conclusion: Medical resource utilization and medical costs per person for patients with early COPD in Korea increased. However, asymptomatic patients with COPD represented by the KNHANES group do not receive adequate long-term treatment compared to relatively symptomatic patients, and require more clinical attention from physicians. Keywords: early COPD, medical cost, medical utilization
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".