Favorable longitudinal change of lung function in patients with asthma-COPD overlap from a COPD cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recognition of asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap (ACO) as a distinct phenotype of COPD or asthma has increased. Although ACO has worse clinical features than non-ACO COPD, limited information is available on long-term outcomes of lung function decline for ACO and non-ACO COPD. COPD patients with at least 3 years of follow-up were selected from the Korean Obstructive Lung Disease cohort. ACO was defined based on 3 major criteria: 1) airflow limitation in individuals 40 years of age and older, 2) ≥10 pack-years of smoking history, and 3) a history of asthma or bronchodilator response of > 400 mL in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) at baseline; and at least 1 minor criterion: 1) history of atopy or allergic rhinitis, 2) two separated bronchodilator responses of ≥12% and 200 mL in FEV 1 , or 3) peripheral blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/μL. Lung function decline was compared using a linear mixed effects model for longitudinal data with random intercept and random slope. Among 239 patients, 47 were diagnosed with ACO (19.7%). During the follow-up period, change in smoking status, use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists or ICS and at least 2 exacerbations per year were similar between patients with non-ACO COPD and ACO. Over a median follow-up duration of 5.8 years, patients with non-ACO COPD experienced a faster annual decline in pre-bronchodilator FEV 1 than patients with ACO (− 29.3 ml/year vs. -13.9 ml/year, P = 0.042), which was persistent after adjustment for confounders affecting lung function decline. Patients with ACO showed favorable longitudinal changes in lung function compared to COPD patients over a median follow-up of 5.8 years.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".