Association between early history of asthma and COPD diagnosis in later life: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Whereas most studies have reported prior history/diagnosis of asthma as an independent risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) development in later life, no systematic review and meta-analysis has been conducted to synthesize these observational studies. The aim of this review is to investigate associations between prior history of asthma and later development of COPD. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE for studies related to prior history of asthma and COPD diagnosis. Articles were screened for relevance by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality was independently assessed and data extracted for qualitative and quantitative review. We explored heterogeneity and performed a publication bias check. Results: From the 1260 articles retrieved, 9 were included in the qualitative review and 7 in the meta-analysis. History of asthma was associated with developing COPD in later life (Inverse Variance Random-effects model, odds ratio: 7.87, 95% confidence interval: 5.40-11.45, p < 0.00001). Conclusions: Studies with high methodological quality provided sufficient evidence to suggest that individuals with previous history of asthma have an increasing likelihood of developing COPD in later life.
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 | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".