BMI is associated with FEV1 decline in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is considerable heterogeneity in the rate of lung function decline in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the determinants of which are largely unknown. Observational studies in COPD indicate that low body mass index (BMI) is associated with worse outcomes, and overweight/obesity has a protective effect – the so-called “obesity paradox”. We aimed to determine the relationship between BMI and the rate of FEV1 decline in data from published clinical trials in COPD. Methods We performed a systematic review of the literature, and identified 5 randomized controlled trials reporting the association between BMI and FEV1 decline. Four of these were included in the meta-analyses. We analyzed BMI in 4 categories: BMI-I (< 18.5 or < 20 kg/m2), BMI-II (18.5 or 20 to < 25 kg/m2), BMI-III (25 to < 29 or < 30 kg/m2) and BMI-IV (≥29 or ≥ 30 kg/m2). We then performed a meta-regression of all the estimates against the BMI category. Results The estimated rate of FEV1 decline decreased with increasing BMI. Meta-regression of the estimates showed that BMI was significantly associated with the rate of FEV1 decline (linear trend p = 1.21 × 10− 5). Conclusions These novel findings support the obesity paradox in COPD: compared to normal BMI, low BMI is a risk factor for accelerated lung function decline, whilst high BMI has a protective effect. The relationship may be due to common but as-of-yet unknown causative factors; further investigation into which may reveal novel endotypes or targets for therapeutic intervention.
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 | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".