MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889821847 · doi:10.1183/13993003.01261-2018

What is a COPD exacerbation? Current definitions, pitfalls, challenges and opportunities for improvement

2018· review· en· W2889821847 on OpenAlexaff
V. Kim, Shawn D. Aaron

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExacerbationCOPDIntensive care medicineSputumGuidelineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic illness that can be periodically punctuated by exacerbations, characterised by acute worsening of symptoms, including increased dyspnoea, cough, sputum production and sputum purulence. COPD exacerbations are common and have important clinical and economic consequences, including lost work productivity, increased utilisation of healthcare resources, temporary or permanent reductions in lung function and exercise capacity, hospitalisation, and sometimes death. Over the past two decades, clinicians and researchers have broadened their treatment goals for COPD to extend beyond improving lung function and symptoms, and have begun to address the importance of preventing and reducing exacerbations. However, despite the best efforts of clinicians and guideline committees, current definitions of COPD exacerbations are imperfect and fraught with problems. The cardinal symptoms of a COPD exacerbation are nonspecific and can result from acute cardiorespiratory illnesses other than COPD. A proposed definition, which may be more specific than current definitions, suggests that COPD exacerbation be defined as an acute or subacute worsening of dyspnoea (≥5 on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0 to 10) sometimes but not necessarily accompanied by increased cough, sputum volume and/or sputum purulence. Necessary laboratory criteria for an exacerbation include oxygen desaturation ≤4% below that of stable state, elevated levels of circulating blood neutrophils or eosinophils (≥9000 neutrophils·mm−3or ≥2% blood eosinophils) and elevated C-reactive protein (≥3 mg·L−1), without evidence of pneumonia or pulmonary oedema on chest radiography and with negative laboratory test results for other aetiologies. Herein, we discuss the current state of the art with respect to how we define COPD exacerbations, associated pitfalls and challenges, and opportunities for improvement.

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)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.125
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.125
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0150.032
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0100.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.102 · 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

Citations178
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207