<p>Longitudinal comparison of outcomes in patients with smoking-related asthma-COPD overlap and in non-smoking asthmatics with incomplete reversibility of airway obstruction</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need to characterize the impact of the smoking status on the clinical course of asthmatics with incomplete reversibility of airway obstruction (IRAO). OBJECTIVE: To compare longitudinal health care use, symptom control, and medication needs between smoking and non-smoking asthmatics with IRAO. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 12-month follow-up of a cross-sectional study comparing asthmatics with IRAO according to their tobacco exposure. One group had a tobacco exposure ≥20 pack-years and was considered to have asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) and the second with a past tobacco exposure <5 pack-years was considered as non-smokers with IRAO (NS-IRAO). Study participants were contacted by telephone every 3 months to document exacerbation events and symptom control. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients completed all follow-up telephone calls: 71 ACO and 40 NS-IRAO. The number of exacerbations per patient over the 12-month follow-up was similar in both groups. However, ACO reported worse symptom control throughout the follow-up as compared to NS-IRAO, although no significant variations within a group were observed over the study period. CONCLUSION: Although asthma control scores were poorer in ACO patients over 1 year compared to NS-IRAO, exacerbation rate was similar and low in both groups of asthmatics. These observations suggest that poorer asthma control in ACO was not driven by the number of exacerbations but may reflect the influence of chronic airway changes related to the COPD component.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".