Blood Eosinophils and Clinical Outcome of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown the association between eosinophilia and clinical outcomes of patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). But the evidences are lack of consensus. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to conduct a pooled analysis of outcome comparing eosinophilic (EOS) AECOPD and non-EOS AECOPD patients. METHODS: We included PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to 2020 to retrieve articles. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies about patients with and without EOS AECOPD in terms of in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, comorbidities, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), gender, and BMI were included preclinical studies, review articles, editorials, commentaries, conference abstracts, and book chapters were excluded. The methodologic assessment of studies was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochran scale. Comprehensive Rev Man 5 was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies with 18,041 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were used in this meta-analysis. Comparing to the non-EOS group, those with EOS AECOPD patients had a lower risk for in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.95, p = 0.03), shorter length of hospital stay (OR = -0.72, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.00, p = 0.05), better FEV1 (mean difference = 0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.20, p < 0.00001), and a lower risk of arrhythmias (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.01-2.21, p = 0.04). In addition, the non-EOS group had a higher percentage of male (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.15-1.56, p = 0.0002) than EOS group. The rate of steroid use (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.47-1.42, p = 0.48) and BMI (mean difference = 0.43, 95% CI -0.18 to 1.05, p = 0.17] had no difference between 2 groups. CONCLUSION: The results of our meta-analysis suggest that EOS AECOPD patients have a better clinical outcome than non-EOS AECOPD patients in terms of length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, FEV1, and risk of arrhythmias. In addition, the non-EOS AECOPD patients have higher percentage of male than EOS AECOPD 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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".