Impact of Body Mass Index on the Risk of Exacerbation in Patients With COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this review is to synthesize current evidence of the association between body mass index (BMI) categories and the risk of exacerbation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: A systematic search was conducted across 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Eligible studies must have reported on the association between BMI (either as continuous or categorical) and risk of COPD exacerbation, as defined according to recognized clinical criteria. Observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional) were eligible for inclusion. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the methodological quality. Combined effect sizes were reported as relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: =94.2%). Overweight and obese BMI status was associated with a similar risk of exacerbation. Conclusion: Our findings report that underweight, but not overweight or obese patients, have an increased risk of COPD exacerbation, compared to individuals with a normal BMI. This differential association emphasizes the need for nuanced investigations into the underlying mechanisms of the impact of BMI on the course of COPD. Further research is needed to inform personalized interventions and improve COPD management strategies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it