Sex differences in COPD outcome in 5,355 women with COPD: A new analysis of the 3CIA study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is partial evidence that COPD is expressed differently in women than in men, namely on symptoms, pulmonary function, exacerbations, comorbidities or prognosis. There is a need to improve the characterization of COPD in females. We obtained and pooled data of 17 139 patients from 22 COPD cohorts and analysed the clinical differences by sex, establishing the relationship between these characteristics in women and the prognosis and severity of the disease. Comparisons were established with standard statistics and survival analysis, including crude and multivariate Cox-regression analysis. Overall, 5 355 (31.2%) women were compared with men with COPD. Women were younger, had lower pack-years, greater FEV1%, lower BMI and a greater number of exacerbations (all p<0.05). On symptoms, women reported more dyspnea, similar cough, but less expectoration (p < 0.001). There were no differences in the BODE index score in women (2.4) versus men (2.4) (p = 0.5), but the distribution of all BODE components was highly variable by sex within different thresholds of BODE. On prognosis, 5-year survival was higher in COPD females (86.9%) than in males (76.3%), p < 0.001, in all patients and within each of the specific comorbidities that we assessed. The crude and adjusted RR and 95% C.I. for death in males was 1.82 (1.69-1.96) and 1.73 (1.50-2.00), respectively. COPD in women has some characteristic traits expressed differently than compared to men, mainly with more dyspnea and COPD exacerbations and less phlegm, among others, although long-term survival appears better in female COPD patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".