Chronic Bronchitis Affects Outcomes in Smokers without Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic bronchitis (CB) importantly affects outcomes in smokers with COPD, but the effects on smokers without COPD are less well known and less emphasized. The aim of our study was to investigate the possible effects of CB on clinical outcomes in smokers without COPD (noCOPD) and compare them with the effects in smokers with COPD (COPD). METHODS: For that purpose, we studied 511 smokers, 302 with and 209 without COPD, followed for 10 years in an academic COPD ambulatory setting. Chronic bronchitis was defined as the presence of cough and sputum production for at least 3 months in each of two consecutive years. All subjects underwent clinical and functional examination with spirometry, diffusion capacity (DLco), 6-min walking test (6MWT), mMRC Dyspnoea Scale, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and recording of annual frequency of exacerbations. All-cause mortality during follow-up was recorded. RESULTS: decline in noCOPD but it significantly did in COPD. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of chronic bronchitis in smokers without COPD will significantly affect symptoms, quality of life, and survival, underlining the importance of recognizing the condition and managing it accordingly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".