Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a frequent complication in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is unclear that the extent to which the traditional risk stratifying scores for PE are accurate in this population. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of adult patients with COPD and suspected PE included in an Institutional Registry of Thromboembolic Disease at a tertiary teaching hospital in the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina. We estimated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AU-ROC), sensitivity and specificity of the Wells and Geneva scores using a positive computed tomography angiography as the gold standard for PE. We also estimated the sensitivity and specificity for the presence of isolated worsening of dyspnea at presentation, without other cardinal symptoms of acute exacerbation of COPD. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, of which 22% had confirmed PE. The AUC was 0.66 (95% CI 0.56-0.76) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.45-0.67) for the Wells and Geneva, respectively. Considering the most widely used cutoff points, the sensitivity and specificity were 24% and 90% for the Wells and 59% and 43% for the Geneva score, respectively. Isolated worsening of dyspnea on presentation had a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 37%. CONCLUSIONS: Both Wells and Geneva scores exhibit poor diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of PE in patients with COPD. The presence of isolated worsening of dyspnea on presentation could be an easy to identify criteria for the initial triage in this population. Further validation of our findings remains warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".