MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798044679 · doi:10.2147/copd.s158614

Prevalence of osteoarthritis in individuals with COPD: a systematic review

2018· review· en· W2798044679 on OpenAlexaff
Adnan Wshah, Sara J. T. Guilcher, Roger Goldstein, Dina Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of COPD · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsWest Park Healthcare CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDCINAHLPsycINFOMEDLINEOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyPopulationCohort studyPsychological interventionCohortInternal medicineEnvironmental healthAlternative medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this review was to examine the prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) in individuals with COPD. A computer-based literature search of CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO and Embase databases was performed. Studies reporting the prevalence of OA among a cohort of individuals with COPD were included. The sample size varied across the studies from 27 to 52,643 with a total number of 101,399 individuals with COPD recruited from different countries. The mean age ranged from 59 to 76 years. The prevalence rates of OA among individuals with COPD were calculated as weighted means. A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria with a prevalence ranging from 12% to 74% and an overall weighted mean of 35.5%. Our findings suggest that the prevalence of OA is high among individuals with COPD and should be considered when developing and applying interventions in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of COPDSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207