Extra‐respiratory symptoms in patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation: Prevalence, clinical burden and their impact on functional status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In COPD management, the improvement of the health status by alleviating respiratory symptoms is among the main aims. However, little is known on the prevalence and burden of extra-respiratory symptoms which can also be distressing especially during a COPD exacerbation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of extra-respiratory symptoms and their impact on health and functional statuses in patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation. METHODS: Health status was evaluated with the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), functional status with Karnofsky index, and presence and severity of respiratory symptoms were evaluated with Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). RESULTS: In a sample of 47 patients, fatigue was found to be the most prevalent 95.7% followed by pain 74.5%, lack of appetite 72.3%, depression and anxiety (each in 63.8%), drowsiness 59.6% and nausea 31.9%. The concomitant presence of an increasing number of symptoms (three, four, five, six or seven) was individually associated with worse health status or of functional status (eg, CAT score in patients with three most prevalent symptoms, fatigue, pain and lack of appetite 29.6 vs 25.1, P = .006 in patients without them; Karnofsky index scores in patients with the four most prevalent symptoms 52 vs 65.6, P = .001). Linear regressions confirmed that the increase in the number of concomitant extra-respiratory symptoms significantly correlated with the worsening of health/functional status. In conclusion, the burden of extra-respiratory symptoms in patients with hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation is significant and impact significantly on health/functional status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".