The incidence of acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic interstitial lung disease with a high incidence of acute exacerbation and an increasing mortality rate. Currently, treatment methods and effects are limited. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of the incidence of acute exacerbation in patients with IPF, hoping to provide reference for the prevention and management of IPF. We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. From the creation of the database to the cohort study on April 3, 2023, we collected studies on the incidence of acute exacerbation of IPF patients, and used Stata software (version 16.0) for meta analysis. We used the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) to assess the risk of bias for each study. We calculated the incidence of acute exacerbation in IPF patients and analyzed the risk factors for acute exacerbation in IPF patients and prognostic factors for overall survival from the initial IPF diagnosis. A total of ten cohort studies on the incidence of AE-IPF were included, including 11,855 IPF patients. The results showed that the incidence of acute exacerbation within one year was 9%; the incidence of acute exacerbation within 2 years is 13%; the incidence of acute exacerbation within 3 years is 19%; the incidence of acute exacerbation within 4 years is 11%. In addition, one study reported an acute exacerbation rate of 1.9% within 30 days. The incidence of acute exacerbation within ten years reported in one study was 9.8%. Mura et al.'s article included a retrospective cohort study and a prospective cohort study. The prospective cohort study showed that the incidence of acute exacerbation within 3 years was 18.6%, similar to the results of the retrospective cohort study meta-analysis. Our system evaluation and meta-analysis results show that the incidence of AE-IPF is relatively high. Therefore, sufficient attention should be paid to the research results, including the management and prevention of the disease, in order to reduce the risk of AE.Trial registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022341323.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".