The BODE (Body Mass Index, Airflow Obstruction, Dyspnea, and Exercise Capacity) Index in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Comprehensive Clinical Assessment Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous condition with systemic effects extending beyond airflow limitation. Spirometry alone is insufficient for a comprehensive assessment. The BODE index, which integrates body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity, was developed to improve prognostication by capturing multiple dimensions of disease burden. This systematic review, conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library up to August 2025. Eligibility was defined using the PICO framework, and risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and QUIPS tool. From 128 records, five studies comprising 2,482 patients with COPD were included. The BODE index consistently outperformed FEV₁ and GOLD staging in predicting mortality, exacerbations, and hospitalizations. Modified indices, such as the ADO (age, dyspnea, obstruction) and i-BODE (incremental shuttle walk test in place of six-minute walk distance), enhanced feasibility and calibration in primary care and rehabilitation settings. Across studies, outcome ascertainment was robust, with an overall low to moderate risk of bias. The BODE index provides a multidimensional and clinically meaningful approach to COPD evaluation, surpassing spirometry by reflecting both pulmonary and systemic disease burden. It supports better risk stratification for clinical management and research. Future studies should explore integration with biomarkers, imaging, and digital tools to refine prognostic accuracy and guide personalized care.
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 | 0.028 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".