Quality of life and its associated factors for mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients of urban community settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a serious disease with impaired quality of life (QoL). Few studies have focused on the QoL for mild COPD patients in Chinese urban communities. This study aimed to evaluate the QoL and explore its associated factors among patients with mild COPD in Shanghai. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 275 mild COPD patients was conducted in 6 communities of Pudong New Area in Shanghai, China, in 2016. Data on socioeconomic and health conditions were acquired through a face-to-face interview and a physical examination. EuroQoL five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D)- Chinese version was applied to evaluate their QoL. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CI for risk factors associated with QoL. RESULTS: Among 275 subjects, the overall visual analog scale score and utility of QoL were 70.6 and 0.889, respectively. Logistic regression analysis indicated that exacerbation in recent year were negatively associated with the top 25% utility of QoL (OR =2.02, 95% CI: 1.03-3.97), and the worse exercise capacity (distance of 6-minute walking test <525.3 m) was negatively correlated the outcome (OR =2.92, 95% CI: 1.10-7.75) too. In multi-factor logistic regression, the associations were slightly weakened. CONCLUSIONS: The QoL was impaired in mild COPD patients living in urban communities. Exacerbation in the past year and exercise capacity were significantly correlated to QoL. More interventions should be developed to improve the QoL at the early stage of COPD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".