MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414751663 · doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002976

Frequency and severity of COPD exacerbations and future risk of exacerbations and mortality: an observational cohort study in Canada

2025· article· en· W4414751663 on OpenAlexafffundabout
MyLinh Duong, Christina Qian, Manisha Talukdar, Sheena Kayaniyil, Johnston Karissa, Clémentine Nordon, Erika Penz

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Respiratory Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAstraZeneca (Canada)Hamilton Health Sciences
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of OntarioInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesAstraZeneca CanadaAstraZeneca
KeywordsExacerbationCOPDObservational studyCohort studyCopd exacerbationAsthma exacerbationsCohortSeverity of illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of subsequent exacerbations, in relation to history of exacerbations, in a cohort of older chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients in Canada. METHODS: Using provincial claims data from Ontario, Canada, patients with COPD aged≥65 years (identified between 2004 and 2018; followed up to 2020) were categorised into one of four mutually exclusive groups: no exacerbation; only one moderate; only one severe; or two or more exacerbations of any severity (moderate or severe) during the baseline period. The index date was the first documentation of a COPD diagnosis code; the subsequent 12 months served as the baseline period. Adjusted risks of subsequent exacerbations (any severity and severe exacerbation, separately) by the end of postbaseline year 1, 2 and 3 were estimated, accounting for differences in patient and disease characteristics and competing risk of death. RESULTS: A total of 591 686 patients were included. The majority (89.8%) had no exacerbation at baseline, 3.1% had one moderate exacerbation only, 3.6% had one severe exacerbation only and 3.6% had two or more exacerbations of any severity. Adjusted risks of a subsequent exacerbation of any severity by the end of year 3 were 28.6% (95% CI, 28.5% to 28.7%) with no baseline exacerbation; 56.6% (95% CI, 56.1% to 57.1%), one severe; 58.4% (95% CI, 58.0% to 58.8%), one moderate; and 77.5% (95% CI, 77.2% to 77.8%) two or more exacerbations. Adjusted risks of a subsequent severe exacerbation by the end of year 3 were 20.1% (95% CI, 20.0% to 20.2%) with no baseline exacerbation; 34.9% (95% CI, 34.5% to 35.4%), one moderate; 46.7% (95% CI, 46.2% to 47.2%), one severe; and 59.6% (95% CI, 59.3% to 60.0%) two or more exacerbations. CONCLUSIONS: Having a history of a single severe or two or more exacerbations of any severity is associated with a higher risk of future exacerbations, with observed exacerbation rates and severity that are constant over time. Even one moderate exacerbation over a year is associated with poorer outcomes, compared with the absence of exacerbation, and moderate exacerbations should be managed accordingly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open Respiratory ResearchSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207