Epidemiology and Prognostic Significance of Cough in Fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Cough is a key symptom in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). Objectives This study evaluated the prevalence, longitudinal change, associations, and prognostic significance of cough severity in patients with fibrotic ILD. Methods We included consecutive patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-IPF fibrotic ILD who completed the 100-mm Cough Severity Visual Analog Scale from the prospective multicenter Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis. Baseline cough severity and associations with patient demographics and clinical factors were determined. Relationships between baseline cough severity and health outcomes were evaluated. Measurements and Main Results Patients with IPF (n = 1,061) had higher median baseline cough severity than those with non-IPF fibrotic ILD (n = 2,825) (24 vs. 20 mm; P < 0.001), with worse cough associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease for both cohorts. Worse cough severity was independently associated with worse health-related quality of life at baseline, larger annualized decline in DlCO, development of disease progression, and reduced transplant-free survival in both IPF and non-IPF fibrotic ILD cohorts. The IPF cohort (2.2 mm; 95% confidence interval, 1.6–2.9 mm) had larger annualized increments in cough severity than the non-IPF fibrotic ILD cohort (1.1 mm; 95% confidence interval, 0.8–1.4 mm; P = 0.004). There was no difference in worsening cough over time comparing those receiving and not receiving ILD-targeted therapy or with and without lung function decline. Conclusions Cough is common in patients with IPF and non-IPF fibrotic ILD, with increasing cough severity over time irrespective of ILD-targeted therapy. Patient-reported cough severity has prognostic implications on health-related quality of life, disease progression, and survival in fibrotic ILD.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".