Dyspnoea and symptom burden in mild–moderate COPD: the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies assessing dyspnoea and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have focussed on patients in clinical settings, not the general population. The aim of this analysis was to compare the prevalence and severity of dyspnoea and impaired HRQoL in individuals with and without COPD from the general population, focussing on mild–moderate COPD. Analysis of the 3-year Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study included four subgroups: mild COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 1); moderate COPD (GOLD 2); non-COPD smokers; and non-COPD never-smokers. The primary outcome was dyspnoea (Medical Research Council (MRC) scale), and the secondary outcome was HRQoL (COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score; Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score). Subgroups were analysed by sex, physician-diagnosed COPD status and exacerbations. 1443 participants (mild COPD (n=397); moderate COPD (n=262(; smokers (n=449) and never-smokers (n=335)) were studied. People with mild COPD were more likely to report more severe dyspnoea (MRC 2versus1) than those without COPD (OR (95% CI) 1.42 (1.05–1.91)), and non-COPD never-smokers (OR (95%CI) 1.64 (1.07–2.52)). Among people with mild COPD, more severe dyspnoea was reported in womenversusmen (MRC2versus1; OR (95% CI) 3.70 (2.23–6.14)); people with,versuswithout, physician-diagnosed COPD (MRC2versus1; OR (95% CI) 3.27 (1.71–6.23)), and people withversuswithout recent exacerbations (MRC2versus1; ≥2versus0 exacerbations: OR (95% CI) 3.62 (1.02–12.86); MRC ≥3versus1; 1versus0 exacerbation: OR (95% CI): 9.24 (2.01–42.42)). Similar between-group differences were obtained for CAT and SGRQ scores. Careful assessment of dyspnoea and HRQoL could help identify individuals for earlier diagnosis and treatment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".