Symptomatic smokers without COPD have physiological changes heralding the development of COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background COPD is a major health problem, mainly due to cigarette smoking. Most studies in COPD are dedicated to fully developed COPD in older subjects, even though development of COPD may start soon after smoking initiation. Therefore, there is a need to diagnose this “early disease” by detecting the initial events responsible for ultimate development of COPD. Methods Measurement of maximum mid expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of vital capacity (MMEF) in a routine spirometry, which detects small airways disease, was used to investigate if MMEF abnormalities in smokers without COPD (noCOPD) would relate to respiratory symptoms and identify smokers that might progress to COPD. For this purpose we studied 511 smokers, 302 COPD and 209 noCOPD, followed long term with spirometry including MMEF, diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO), 6-min walk test (6MWT), Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale and COPD Assessment Test. Three spirometries V1,V2 and V3 (5±2.5 and 10±4 years apart from V1) were performed to assess functional decline and development of COPD. Results 65% of noCOPD had an abnormal MMEF (<80%) and 38% an abnormalDLCO. The NoCOPD with MMEF <80% group performed worse in the 6MWT (p=0.01), was more dyspnoeic (p=0.01) and had higher prevalence of chronic bronchitis than the noCOPD with MMEF>80% group (p=0.04). 21% of noCOPD with MMEF <80% and 2.7% with MMEF>80% developed COPD by V3 (p=0.0004). Conclusions The MMEF, a functional test available in a routine spirometry, can detect early lung abnormalities and identify the subset of symptomatic smokers with pathological changes that might lead to COPD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".