An Updated Definition and Severity Classification of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations: The Rome Proposal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current definition of a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation (ECOPD) is based solely on worsening respiratory symptoms, with severity classified post hoc by the healthcare resource used to treat the event, which may vary among practitioners and healthcare systems. These shortcomings support a need to revise the ECOPD definition and severity classification to one that is useful at time of patient contact. To achieve this, an expert panel used a modified Delphi method of five rounds of questions generated by a thorough review of the literature, supplemented by virtual discussions. For the 80 identified questions, the agreement level was rated using a Likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Consensus was defined a priori as a median score ≥7 (strong agreement). The proposed definition states: "In a patient with COPD, an exacerbation is an event characterized by dyspnea and/or cough and sputum that worsens over ≤14 days, that may be accompanied by tachypnea and/or tachycardia, often associated with increased local and systemic inflammation caused by airway infection, pollution, or other insult to the airways." Three severity categories (mild, moderate, or severe) were defined using integration of six clinically measurable variables: intensity of dyspnea, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, heart rate, C-reactive protein, and, if indicated, arterial blood gases. In conclusion, by incorporating measurable clinical and laboratory variables at the time of exacerbation, the Rome proposal for an updated definition of ECOPD could help standardize care and outcomes for clinicians and researchers alike. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
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 | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".