Clinically important deterioration in a mild–moderate COPD population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Clinically important deterioration (CID), a composite of exacerbation, declines in lung function and health status has been studied as an indicator of disease worsening in moderate–severe COPD clinical populations. We assessed whether CID is predictive of worsening over 18 months in a population-based mild–moderate COPD cohort. Methods Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung disease (CanCOLD) participants with COPD were assessed over 18 months for CID, and over the next 18 months for outcomes. Their association was then examined: 1) defined into threshold-based binary variables, the declines in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), health status and dyspnoea, using logistic regression models; 2) time to moderate/severe exacerbation and rates of moderate/severe exacerbations using Cox proportional hazards and Poisson regression, respectively. Results Out of 420 participants, 252 (60%) demonstrated CID (definition 1, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)). Presence of CID at 18 months showed association with future moderate/severe exacerbation (not statistically significant), worsening health status (COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score), and dyspnoea. As a component, FEV 1 was found to be less informative, compared with exacerbation for health status outcome (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.29–14.41 for ≥8-unit increase in SGRQ) alongside future exacerbation, and SGRQ health status component, for future health status decline (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17–0.66 for ≥4-unit increase in SGRQ and OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30–0.94 for ≥2-unit increase CAT score). Discussion Our finding of informative CID components seems to support recommendations of emphasis on exacerbation history and health status, over severity of airway obstruction in clinical assessments to predict outcomes. Suitable adaptations of the current CID definition may be needed for mild–moderate COPD populations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".