MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399864920 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085328

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation purulence status and its association with pulmonary embolism: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4399864920 on OpenAlexafffund
Vicky Mai, Laura Girardi, Kerstin de Wit, Lana A. Castellucci, Shawn D. Aaron, Françis Couturaud, Dean Fergusson, Grégoire Le Gal

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPulmonary embolismExacerbationAcute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseCOPDVenous thrombosisPublication biasInternal medicineFunnel plotSubgroup analysisMEDLINECohort studySystematic reviewIntensive care medicineThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) increases the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE). AECOPD and PE have similar symptoms which results in a high proportion of patients with AECOPD undergoing imaging to rule out PE. Finding predictors and explanatory factors of PE in AECOPD, such as purulence status, could help reduce the need for imaging. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate if there is an association between purulence status in AECOPD and PE diagnosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL will be searched from database inception to April 2024. Randomised trials, cohort studies and cross-sectional studies on the prevalence of PE in patients with AECOPD will be included if the prevalence of PE based on the AECOPD purulence status is available. There will be no restriction on language. The primary outcome will be PE at the initial assessment and secondary outcomes will be all venous thromboembolism (deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and PE) and DVT, respectively, diagnosed at the initial assessment. Relative risks with their 95% CI will be calculated by using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effect model to compare the association between the risk of PE and the AECOPD purulence status (purulent vs non-purulent/unknown). Subgroup analyses will be performed based on the type of study, systematic search of PE versus no systematic search of PE and localisation of PE. Risk of bias will be evaluated by the ROBINS-E tool, publication bias will be evaluated with the funnel plot. The manuscript will be drafted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethics approval. This work will be submitted for presentation at an international conference and for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023459429.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.032
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.004

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→