Evaluation of the Management of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Hospitalized Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are estimated to cost $1.5 billion annually in Canada. Previous studies have shown that barely half of all patients receive ideal care in hospitals. Deviations from guideline-defined optimal care lead to longer hospital stays, readmissions, and increased mortality. Objective: To determine the proportion of patients admitted to hospital for AECOPD who received treatment adherent to guidelines. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with ethics approval from the University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board. Patients hospitalized for ≥24 hours with an AECOPD at a tertiary care center and a community hospital were assessed. Guideline-adherent treatment was defined as appropriate use of supplemental oxygen, inhaled bronchodilators, systemic corticosteroids, antibiotics, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, initiation/continuation of nicotine replacement therapy for current smokers, and vaccination optimization, reflecting international standards of care. Outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics. Results: A random sample of 210 patients were selected of which 99 met inclusion criteria. Only 4% received therapy that met all recommendations. Differences in management were found between sites, specifically the appropriate use of bronchodilators, corticosteroids, antibiotics, and supplemental oxygen. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and smoking cessation rates were 97% and 94%, respectively, at the tertiary care center, compared with 73% and 100% at the community hospital. Additionally, less than half of all patients had their immunization history verified. Conclusion: Gaps in the inpatient management of AECOPD continue to exist. Initiatives must be targeted to optimize management and reduce the burden of the disease.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".