Dyspnoea and symptom burden in mild–moderate COPD: the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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 2 versus 1) 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 women versus men (MRC2 versus 1; OR (95% CI) 3.70 (2.23–6.14)); people with, versus without, physician-diagnosed COPD (MRC2 versus 1; OR (95% CI) 3.27 (1.71–6.23)), and people with versus without recent exacerbations (MRC2 versus 1; ≥2 versus 0 exacerbations: OR (95% CI) 3.62 (1.02–12.86); MRC ≥3 versus 1; 1 versus 0 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it