A simple algorithm for the identification of clinical COPD phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to identify simple rules for allocating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients to clinical phenotypes identified by cluster analyses. Data from 2409 COPD patients of French/Belgian COPD cohorts were analysed using cluster analysis resulting in the identification of subgroups, for which clinical relevance was determined by comparing 3-year all-cause mortality. Classification and regression trees (CARTs) were used to develop an algorithm for allocating patients to these subgroups. This algorithm was tested in 3651 patients from the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment (3CIA) initiative. Cluster analysis identified five subgroups of COPD patients with different clinical characteristics (especially regarding severity of respiratory disease and the presence of cardiovascular comorbidities and diabetes). The CART-based algorithm indicated that the variables relevant for patient grouping differed markedly between patients with isolated respiratory disease (FEV 1 , dyspnoea grade) and those with multi-morbidity (dyspnoea grade, age, FEV 1 and body mass index). Application of this algorithm to the 3CIA cohorts confirmed that it identified subgroups of patients with different clinical characteristics, mortality rates (median, from 4% to 27%) and age at death (median, from 68 to 76 years). A simple algorithm, integrating respiratory characteristics and comorbidities, allowed the identification of clinically relevant COPD phenotypes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".