Risk of dementia or cognitive impairment in COPD patients: A meta-analysis of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose A meta-analysis of cohort studies was performed to evaluate the association between COPD and the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment. Methods Cohort studies that evaluated the association between COPD and the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment were identified by a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The search time frame was from database establishment to April 12, 2022, with two reviewers independently screening the literature and extracting data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used to conduct the quality evaluation. Then, a meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.1 software. Results Six cohort studies including 428,030 participants were included. The overall quality of the included studies was high, with an average NOS score of over 7. Meta-analysis showed that compared to those without COPD at baseline, patients with COPD were associated with a significant increased risk of dementia ( RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.03 ~ 1.50, I 2 = 96.6%, z = 2.25, p = 0.024) and cognitive impairment ( RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.13 ~ 1.49, I 2 = 50.1%, z = 3.72, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis suggested no significant difference in the risk of dementia among COPD patients of different genders. Nevertheless, in terms of age, the risk of dementia varied among COPD patients of different ages, which was most distinguished in patients younger than 65 years. Conclusion COPD patients have a higher risk of developing dementia or cognitive impairment compared to those without COPD, and this risk is not affected by gender but seems to be associated with age. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , identifier CRD42022325832.
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 | 0.030 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.084 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".