Sleep and cognitive impairment in COPD exacerbated and stable patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Sleep disturbances and cognitive impairment are very prevalent in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and have a negative impact on functionality. Objectives: The aims of this study were to compare sleep characteristics and the cognitive state in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (AE-COPD) and in stable COPD patients; and to establish the relationship between cognitive status and sleep in both situations. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study. Patients with AE-COPD admitted to the Pneumology Service of the University Hospitals in Granada and patients with stable COPD recruited from the databases of the hospitals were included in the study. Clinical variables were recruited as descriptive variables. Main outcome measures included the assessment of objective and subjective sleep (Pittsburg sleep quality index), somnolence (Epworth sleepiness scale) and cognitive status (Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)). Results: 60 Patients with AE-COPD (mean age:71.38 ± 9.98) and 49 patients with stable COPD (mean age: 70.55 ± 9.95) were included in this research. Significant differences (p<0.05) were found between both groups in all the MoCA subscales and the total sleep quality score (9.16±5.03 AE-COPD group and 7.06±3.69 stable COPD group; p<0.007). A significant correlation (p<0.05) was also found between cognitive and sleep variables in the stable COPD patients, but not in AE-COPD patients. Conclusions: AE-COPD patients show worse sleep and cognitive values than patients with stable COPD. There is a relationship between cognitive and sleep characteristics in patients with stable 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".