Impact of a Specialized Ambulatory Clinic on Refractory Breathlessness in Subjects With Advanced COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe exertional dyspnea is a commonly reported symptom in patients with COPD, especially in the advanced stages. Our objective was to assess the preliminary impact of comprehensive, individualized management provided by a specialized tertiary center clinic on exertional dyspnea and patient-centered outcomes in patients with advanced COPD. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 45 subjects with COPD who were evaluated in a newly established dyspnea clinic over 3 years. Those with severe exertional dyspnea (Medical Research Council dyspnea score of ≥4/5), despite optimal disease-targeted therapy were eligible for referral. We used the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) to assess symptoms. Responders were defined as those whose change from baseline to 2-months met the minimum clinically important difference of ≤−1 in ESAS-r score for shortness of breath. RESULTS: Subjects (mean ± SD age 70 ± 7 years) had an average FEV 1 of 36 ± 18% predicted and a Medical Research Council dyspnea score of 4.7 ± 0.4. Responses to the intervention were variable and mean change in the ESAS-r score for shortness of breath in the total group was −0.32 ± 3.39, P = .53. Forty-seven percent of the subjects were identified as responders, and 42, 40, 40, and 33% met the minimum clinically important difference for improvement in ESAS-r scores for tiredness, anxiety, well-being, and depression, respectively. Responders had fewer emergency department annual visits in the 2 years after their first clinic visit compared with nonresponders (mean ± SD, 1.38 ± 1.63 vs 4.45 ± 5.52, P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: Although the impact of our specialized advanced dyspnea clinic was variable, as evaluated by the ESAS-r, it provided measurable additional clinically important benefit to almost half of the subjects with advanced COPD and severe refractory dyspnea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".