MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309183725 · doi:10.1183/23120541.00436-2022

Comparison of two scores for short-term outcomes in patients with COPD exacerbation in the emergency department: the Ottawa COPD Risk Scale and the DECAF score

2022· article· en· W4309183725 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Ünal, Başak Bayram, Begüm Ergan, Kazim Can, Yağız Kağan Ergün, Oğuz Kılınç

Bibliographic record

VenueERJ Open Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDEmergency departmentExacerbationInternal medicineObservational studyMechanical ventilationAtrial fibrillationEmergency medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While clinical decision rules have been developed to evaluate exacerbations and decisions on hospitalisation and discharge in emergency departments (EDs) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), these rules are not widely used in EDs. In this study, we compare the predictive efficacy of the Ottawa Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Risk Scale (OCRS) and the Dyspnea, Eosinopenia, Consolidation, Acidemia, and Atrial Fibrillation (DECAF) score in estimating the short-term poor outcome of patients in our ED with exacerbations of COPD. Methods: This single-centre prospective observational study was conducted over 6 months. Patients with acute exacerbations of COPD admitted to the ED during the study period were included in the study. A poor outcome was defined as any of the following: readmission and requiring hospitalisation within 14 days of discharge, requiring mechanical ventilation on the first admission, hospitalisation for longer than 14 days on the first admission, or death within 30 days. The sensitivity and specificity of the OCRS and the DECAF score for a poor outcome and for mortality were calculated. Results: Of the 385 patients who participated in the study, 85 were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. 66% of the patients were male, and the mean age was 70.15±10.36 years. A total of 20.7% of all patients (n=62) experienced poor outcomes. The sensitivity of an OCRS score <1 for predicting a poor outcome in patients was 96.8% (95% CI 88.8-99.6%) and the specificity was 18.5% (95% CI 13.8-24.0%). The sensitivity and specificity of an OCRS score <2 were 83.3% (95% CI 35.9-99.6%) and 65.5% (95% CI 59.6-70.7%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of a DECAF score <1 were 88.7% (95% CI 78.1-95.3%) and 34.5% (95% CI 28.4-40.9%), respectively. When the DECAF score was <2, sensitivity and specificity were 69.3% (95% CI 56.4-80.4%) and 74.8% (95% CI 68.8-80.2%), respectively. Conclusion: Our physicians achieved high specificity but low sensitivity in predicting a poor outcome. The OCRS is the more sensitive of the two tools, while the DECAF score is more specific in predicting a poor outcome when all threshold values are evaluated. While both tools may results in unnecessary hospitalisation, they can reduce the incidence of hospital discharge of patients with exacerbations of COPD who will develop poor outcomes in the ED.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueERJ Open ResearchSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207