COMET: a multicomponent home-based disease-management programme<i>versus</i>routine care in severe COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COPD Patient Management European Trial (COMET) investigated the efficacy and safety of a home-based COPD disease management intervention for severe COPD patients. The study was an international open-design clinical trial in COPD patients (forced expiratory volume in 1 s <50% of predicted value) randomised 1:1 to the disease management intervention or to the usual management practices at the study centre. The disease management intervention included a self-management programme, home telemonitoring, care coordination and medical management. The primary end-point was the number of unplanned all-cause hospitalisation days in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary end-points included acute care hospitalisation days, BODE (body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea and exercise) index and exacerbations. Safety end-points included adverse events and deaths. For the 157 (disease management) and 162 (usual management) patients eligible for ITT analyses, all-cause hospitalisation days per year (mean± sd ) were 17.4±35.4 and 22.6±41.8, respectively (mean difference −5.3, 95% CI −13.7 to −3.1; p=0.16). The disease management group had fewer per-protocol acute care hospitalisation days per year (p=0.047), a lower BODE index (p=0.01) and a lower mortality rate (1.9% versus 14.2%; p<0.001), with no difference in exacerbation frequency. Patient profiles and hospitalisation practices varied substantially across countries. The COMET disease management intervention did not significantly reduce unplanned all-cause hospitalisation days, but reduced acute care hospitalisation days and mortality in severe COPD patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".