Association between Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Dementia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disease among the elderly, which has been linked to cognitive decline. However, the relationship between COPD and dementia remains unclear. Summary: We conducted a systematic literature review by searching databases such as Pubmed, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library (from inception to April 18, 2018) for studies on COPD that also investigated the prevalence of dementia. We found 3 cohort studies including a total of 39,392 COPD patients. Then we applied the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate the risk of bias. Key Messages: COPD patients faced a higher risk of dementia (HR 1.46; 95% CI 1.22–1.75; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis on gender determined that the association between COPD and dementia was stronger in male patients (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.20–1.86, p < 0.001) than in female patients (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.27–1.57, p < 0.001). A subset study of patients aged >65 years revealed that the HR was greater for patients aged ≥75 years (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.07–2.00, p = 0.02) than for those aged 65–74 years (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.28–1.53, p < 0.001). The cohort studies included were from similar population-based databases, suggesting possible regional limitations and publication bias.
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 | 0.016 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| 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".