Relating factors analysis of cognition dysfunction in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the relating factors for cognitive dysfunction in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Methods Totally 150 patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) and 150 gender- and age-matched healthy subjects (controls) received the cognitive and depression function assessment. 150 AECOPD cases were classified into two groups: COPD patients with or without cognitive dysfunction. Fasting blood uric acid (UA) was measured and compared between the two groups. Relating factors for cognition dysfunction were analyzed. Results The score of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was reduced in AECOPD patients as compared with controls 〔(19.01±3.58) vs. (26.58±1.42)scores, t=-3.48, P=0.032〕. The score of Hamilton depression (HAMD) scale was higher in AECOPD patients than in controls 〔(18.05±4.50) vs. (9.98±3.51)scores, t=4.63, P=0.028〕. The prevalence of cognitive impairment in the patients with AECOPD was 82 cases (54.7%). The serum UA level was lower in the AECOPD patients with cognitive impairment than in patients without cognitive impairment 〔(235±42) μmol/L (n=82) vs. (332±45) μmol/L (n=68), t=-6.65, P=0.003〕. In AECOPD patients, the cognitive function was correlated with education, length of hospital stay, serum UA level, COPD stages, disease duration and the depression level, but was not correlated with smoking and body mass index. Conclusions The cognitive impairment is highly prevalent in patients with AECOPD, which is associated with lower serum UA level, longer hospital stay and disease severity. Key words: Pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive; Cognition disorders; Uric acid
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".