Association of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with mild cognitive impairment and dementia risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common public health issue that has been linked to cognitive dysfunction. AIM: To investigate the relationship between COPD and a risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library electronic databases was conducted. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random or fixed effects model. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies met all the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis yielded a strong association between COPD and increased risk of MCI incidence (OR = 2.11, 95%CI: 1.32-3.38). It also revealed a borderline trend for an increased dementia risk in COPD patients (OR = 1.16, 95%CI: 0.98-1.37). Pooled hazard ratios (HR) using adjusted confounders also showed a higher incidence of MCI (HR = 1.22, 95%CI: -1.18 to -1.27) and dementia (HR = 1.32, 95%CI: -1.22 to -1.43) in COPD patients. A significant lower mini-mental state examination score in COPD patients was noted (MD = -1.68, 95%CI: -2.66 to -0.71). CONCLUSION: Our findings revealed an elevated risk for the occurrence of MCI and dementia in COPD patients. Proper clinical management and attention are required to prevent and control MCI and dementia incidence in COPD patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".