Twenty-year trends in excess costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<bold>Rationale:</bold> Several major risk factors for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), such as population aging, smoking rates, and air pollution levels are rapidly changing, causing inevitable changes in the population burden of COPD. We determined the excess direct costs of COPD and their trend from 2001 to 2020. <bold>Methods:</bold> Using administrative health data from British Columbia, Canada, we created a retrospective cohort of physician-diagnosed COPD patients based on a validated algorithm, matched with a non-COPD cohort on key demographic and socioeconomic factors. Excess direct medical costs (2020 Canadian$) were estimated using generalized linear models by analyzing hospital records, outpatient services, medications, and community-care billing. Comorbidity classes were classified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. Excess COPD costs were determined as the adjusted difference in direct medical costs between COPD and non-COPD cohorts. <bold>Results:</bold> There were 208,554 and 404,703 individuals in the COPD and comparison cohorts, respectively (mean age at baseline, 69.1; 47.8% female). The excess costs of COPD were $5,828 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5,758–5,897] per patient-year (PY). Excess costs due to comorbidities were $3,588 (95% CI 3,554–3,622), with cardiovascular-related conditions alone exceeding the costs attributed to COPD ($1,375 vs $904). Excess costs increased by $219/PY, with higher increase in females than males ($222/PY vs $216/PY). <bold>Conclusions:</bold> Despite multifaceted initiatives in prevention and management, COPD-related economic burden, primarily from comorbid conditions, is rising. Escalating COPD costs and prevalence underscore the disease burden.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".