Epidemiology of COPD in North America and Europe: Results from a systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: A systematic review of the published medical literature was conducted to compare reported hospitalization and mortality rates in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) populations in North America and Europe. Methods: Literature indexed in the PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched and reference lists from selected studies were evaluated. Articles were included if they identified a COPD study population from ≥1 country of interest. Population characteristics, disease information, outcomes, and outcome rates were extracted. Results: More than 4000 unique studies were found; 16 met inclusion criteria for analysis. Reported COPD hospitalization rates were similar between studies in US and Canadian populations (Table). Apart from Spain, all-cause hospitalization rates were similar for studies of COPD populations across North America and Europe. Reported all-cause mortality rates were similar for COPD populations in the USA, Canada, and UK. Conclusions: Reported rates of all-cause hospitalizations and all-cause mortality in COPD populations in North America and Europe are similar. Table. Hospitalization and Mortality Rates (per 100 person-years) in Patients with COPD North America Europe Rate Type Canada United States United Kindom France Italy Spain COPD hospitalization Event Rate* 18-33 27-30 - - - - Patient Rate † 19 19 - - - - All-cause hospitalization Event Rate* 28-40 38 43 34 33 100 Patient Rate † 14-60 14-38 14 11 11 20 All-cause mortality 11 9 4-33 - - - *Total number of hospitalizations; † Total number of patients having an event.
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 | 0.024 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".