Data_Sheet_3_Risk of dementia or cognitive impairment in COPD patients: A meta-analysis of cohort studies.PDF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose<p>A meta-analysis of cohort studies was performed to evaluate the association between COPD and the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment.</p>Methods<p>Cohort studies that evaluated the association between COPD and the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment were identified by a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The search time frame was from database establishment to April 12, 2022, with two reviewers independently screening the literature and extracting data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used to conduct the quality evaluation. Then, a meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.1 software.</p>Results<p>Six cohort studies including 428,030 participants were included. The overall quality of the included studies was high, with an average NOS score of over 7. Meta-analysis showed that compared to those without COPD at baseline, patients with COPD were associated with a significant increased risk of dementia (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.03 ~ 1.50, I<sup>2</sup> = 96.6%, z = 2.25, p = 0.024) and cognitive impairment (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.13 ~ 1.49, I<sup>2</sup> = 50.1%, z = 3.72, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis suggested no significant difference in the risk of dementia among COPD patients of different genders. Nevertheless, in terms of age, the risk of dementia varied among COPD patients of different ages, which was most distinguished in patients younger than 65 years.</p>Conclusion<p>COPD patients have a higher risk of developing dementia or cognitive impairment compared to those without COPD, and this risk is not affected by gender but seems to be associated with age.</p>Systematic review registration<p>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022325832.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.976 | 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".