MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161963403 · doi:10.2147/copd.s296696

A Systematic Literature Review of the Humanistic Burden of COPD

2021· review· en· W3161963403 on OpenAlex
John R. Hurst, Mohd Kashif Siddiqui, Barinder Singh, Precil Varghese, Ulf Holmgren, Enrico De Nigris

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of COPD · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineCOPDQuality of life (healthcare)ExacerbationComorbidityDiseaseDepression (economics)Intensive care medicineAnxietyDisease burdenIncidence (geometry)Systematic reviewPhysical therapyMEDLINEInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, causing substantial economic and social burden. OBJECTIVE: This review assessed the patient-reported humanistic burden associated with moderate to very severe COPD, specifically the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), symptoms, limitations in daily life, and emotional implications, through the use of HRQoL instruments. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to retrieve relevant clinical data from published literature using a representative sample of countries where healthcare systems provide wide availability of COPD medications and/or universal coverage includes respiratory medicines (Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and the USA). The primary inclusion criteria were patients with moderate to very severe COPD. HRQoL was quantified with non-disease-specific and disease-specific questionnaires. RESULTS: In total, 82 studies from 95 publications presented HRQoL data from patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Patient-reported HRQoL declined with worsening airflow limitation, advancing GOLD group, and increasing exacerbation frequency. Both increasing frequency of hospitalization for COPD exacerbations and recurrent hospitalization adversely impacted HRQoL. Comorbidity incidence was higher in patients with increased airflow limitation. It was associated with a further decline in HRQoL and increased depression and anxiety, particularly as disease-associated pain worsened. Physical activity improved HRQoL over time. CONCLUSION: This review highlighted the impact of exacerbations and associated hospitalizations on the humanistic burden of COPD. These findings underline the importance of managing COPD actively, including prompt and appropriate use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies that can improve symptoms and reduce the risk of exacerbations, thereby lessening the humanistic burden. Future reviews could consider a broader range of countries and publications to further assess the humanistic impact of COPD in low- and middle-income economies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it