Prognostic Accuracy of DECAF and Ottawa COPD Risk Scores in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With COPD Exacerbation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) constitutes an important part of emergency department (ED) admissions. Therefore, risk scores for evaluating prognosis in COPD patients are valuable. The study aimed to determine the prognostic accuracy of Dyspnea, Eosinopenia, Consolidation, Acidemia, and Atrial Fibrillation (DECAF) and Ottawa COPD Risk Scale in predicting short-term outcomes in patients presenting to the ED with COPD exacerbation. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary care hospital. All adult patients who presented to the ED with COPD exacerbation between June 2021 and June 2022 were included. DECAF and Ottawa COPD risk scores were calculated for each patient at ED admission. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days of discharge. Results: = 0.626). Using a score cut-off value of 3 for both scores for mortality outcome, the sensitivity/specificity values were 63%/78% for DECAF and 100%/34% for Ottawa. Conclusion: Both risk scores are useful tools for predicting short-term outcomes in patients presenting to the ED after COPD exacerbation and can be used for risk management in the ED.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".