Association between COPD and CKD: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are significant global health issues with a well-established association between the two. This study aims to assess the risk of developing CKD in patients with COPD through systematic review and meta-analysis, and to explore the impact of CKD on the prognosis of COPD patients. Methods: A total of 23 studies were included in the analysis, comprising 11 studies on the risk of CKD in patients with COPD, 6 studies on the impact of CKD on the short-term all-cause mortality risk of patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD), and 6 studies on the impact of CKD on the long-term all-cause mortality risk of COPD patients. The meta-analysis showed that the risk of developing CKD in COPD patients was significantly increased (OR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.28-1.84), and CKD significantly increased the short-term all-cause mortality risk in AECOPD patients (OR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.44-1.63) as well as the long-term all-cause mortality risk in COPD patients (OR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.35-2.15). Results: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, including studies from the inception of the databases through December 31, 2023, to identify research assessing the relationship between COPD and CKD. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data were analyzed using either a random effects model or a fixed effects model for the meta-analysis. Conclusion: This study establishes a significant association between COPD and CKD and reveals the adverse impact of CKD on the prognosis of COPD patients, which may provide important guidance for clinical practice. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".