Predicting Adverse Events Among Patients With COPD Exacerbations in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COPD exacerbations lead to excessive health care utilization, morbidity, and mortality. The Ottawa COPD Risk Scale (OCRS) was developed to predict short-term serious adverse events (SAEs) among patients in the emergency department (ED) with COPD exacerbations. We assessed the utility of the OCRS, its component elements, and other clinical variables for ED disposition decisions in a United States population. METHODS: We compared the OCRS and other factors in predicting SAEs among a retrospective cohort of ED patients with COPD exacerbations. We followed subjects for 30 d, and the primary outcome, SAE, was defined as any death, admission to monitored unit, intubation, noninvasive ventilation, major procedure, myocardial infarction, or revisit with hospital admission. RESULTS: A total of 246 subjects (median 61-y old, 46% male, total admission rate to ward 52%) were included, with 46 (18.7%) experiencing SAEs. Median OCRS scores did not differ significantly between those with and without an SAE (difference: 0 [interquartile range 0–1)]. The OCRS predicted SAEs poorly (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit [H-L GOF] P ≤ .001, area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve 0.519). Three variables were significantly related to SAEs in our final model (H-L GOF P = .14, area under the ROC curve 0.808): Charlson comorbidity index (odds ratio [OR] 1.3 [1.1–1.5] per 1-point increase); triage venous P CO 2 (OR 1.7 [1.2–2.4] per 10 mm Hg increase); and hospitalization within previous year (OR 9.1 [3.3–24.8]). CONCLUSIONS: The OCRS did not reliably predict SAEs in our population. We found 3 risk factors that were significantly associated with 30-d SAE in our United States ED population: triage <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msub> <mml:mtext mathvariant="bold">P</mml:mtext> <mml:mrow> <mml:msub> <mml:mrow> <mml:mtext mathvariant="bold">CO</mml:mtext> </mml:mrow> <mml:mtext mathvariant="bold">2</mml:mtext> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> level, Charlson comorbidity index, and hospitalization within the previous year. Further studies are needed to develop generalizable decision tools to improve safety and resource utilization for this patient population.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".