Protocol for an observational study to identify potential predictors of an acute exacerbation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (the PACE Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are the most critical events for patients with COPD that have a negative impact on patients' quality of life, accelerate disease progression, and can result in hospital admissions and death. Although there is no distinct definition or detailed knowledge about AECOPD, it is commonly used as primary outcome in clinical studies. Furthermore, it may be difficult in clinical practice to differentiate the worsening of symptoms due to an AECOPD or to the development of heart failure. Therefore, it is of major clinical importance to investigate the underlying pathophysiology, and if possible, predictors of an AECOPD and thus to identify patients who are at high risk for developing an acute exacerbation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In total, 355 patients with COPD will be included prospectively to this study during a 3-week inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme at the Schoen Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schoenau am Koenigssee (Germany). All patients will be closely monitored from admission to discharge. Lung function, exercise tests, clinical parameters, quality of life, physical activity and symptoms will be recorded, and blood samples and exhaled air will be collected. If a patient develops an AECOPD, there will be additional comprehensive diagnostic assessments to differentiate between cardiac, pulmonary or cardiopulmonary causes of worsening. Follow-up measures will be performed at 6, 12 and 24 months.Exploratory data analyses methods will be used for the primary research question (screening and identification of possible factors to predict an AECOPD). Regression analyses and a generalised linear model with a binomial outcome (AECOPD) will be applied to test if predictors are significant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Ethical Committee of the Philipps University Marburg, Germany (No. 61/19). The results will be presented in conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04140097.
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 | 0.035 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.014 |
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".