Effect of asthma-COPD overlap compared to COPD on cardiopulmonary exercise test outcomes: Insights from the CanCOLD study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) is a chronic lung health condition in which individuals can have clinical features of both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Even though universally accepted criteria for the diagnosis of ACO do not exist, studies have consistently reported that people with ACO have higher respiratory symptom burden, lower health status, and poorer pulmonary function than people with COPD alone.However, it remains unclear whether these differences in clinical and patient-reported outcomes are associated with greater pathophysiological abnormalities in exercise tolerance and the physiological and/or perceptual response to exercise among people with ACO compared to COPD.Objective: To compare detailed physiological and perceptual responses at the symptom-limited peak of exercise between people with ACO and COPD.Methods: Participants included 411 male or female, ever smokers with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1-sec to forced vital capacity ratio <0.70 who completed pulmonary function tests and a symptom-limited incremental cardiopulmonary cycle exercise test as part of the baseline (cross-sectional) visit of the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) studya longitudinal population-based cohort of randomly-sampled Canadian adults aged 40 years.ACO was defined using three clinical definitions: ACO1 (n=103), self-reported presence of respiratory allergies and/or hay fever (atopy); ACO2 (n=125), self-reported physician diagnosed asthma; and ACO3 (n=65), combination of self-reported atopy and physician diagnosed asthma.Participants were identified as having COPD (no-ACO) when they did not self-report atopy and/or physician diagnosed asthma (n=248).Results: Compared to people with COPD alone, people with ACO (largely independent of the clinical definition
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".