The many faces of asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common diseases that often overlap. The term asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) has been used to define this entity but there remain several speculations on its exact definition, impact, pathophysiology, clinical features, and management. We reviewed recent publications on ACO to obtain more insight of current knowledge and outline future needs. RECENT FINDINGS: Criteria for ACO vary from one publication to another and the many variable features of these patients underline the need to reconsider the evaluation and approach of patients with overlapping features based on clinical traits and underlying biological mechanisms. Epidemiological studies reveal that ACO patients have generally an increased burden of illness and healthcare use in addition to poorer quality of life (QoL) compared with asthma and higher or equal to COPD. However, their long-term outcome seems better than patients with COPD alone. Various methods have been proposed to evaluate these patients but their usefulness compared to 'classical' investigation of obstructive lung diseases remains speculative and needs further evaluation. Furthermore, there are no formal studies that examined and compared the different treatment strategies of well-characterized patients with ACO as such patients are usually excluded from clinical trials. SUMMARY: ACO is a common condition with variable features and a high burden of disease. There is no consensus on its definition, diagnostic, and clinical features and more research should be done on its optimal management and long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".