Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 196

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

COPD phenotypes in biomass smoke-versus tobacco smoke-exposed Mexican women

Open access
Camp, Pat G., Ramirez-Venegas, Alejandra, Sansores, Raul H., Alva, Luis F., McDougall, Jill E., Sin, Don D., Paré, Peter D., Müller, Nestor L., Silva, C. Isabela S., Rojas, Carlos E., Coxson, Harvey O.·2014·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

We hypothesised that biomass smoke exposure is associated with an airway-predominant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) phenotype, while tobacco-related COPD is associated with an emphysema-predominant phenotype. In this cross-sectional study, female never-smokers with COPD and biomass exposure (n=21) and female ex-cigarette smokers with COPD without biomass exposure (n=22) completed computed tomography (CT) at inspiration and expiration, pulmonary function, blood gas, exercise tolerance, and quality of life measures. Two radiologists scored the extent of emphysema and air trapping on CT. Quantitative emphysema severity and distribution and airway wall thickness were calculated using specialised software. Women in the tobacco group had significantly more emphysema than the biomass group (radiologist score 2.3 versus 0.7, p=0.001; emphysema on CT 27%versus 19%, p=0.046; and a larger size of emphysematous spaces, p=0.006). Women in the biomass group had significantly more air trapping than the tobacco group (radiologist score 2.6 and 1.5, respectively; p=0.02) and also scored lower on the symptom, activities and confidence domains of the quality of life assessment and had lower oxygen saturation at rest and during exercise (p<0.05). Biomass smoke exposure is associated with less emphysema but more air trapping than tobacco smoke exposure, suggesting an airway-predominant phenotype.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1183/09031936.00206112

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 196

Metadata

Authors
Camp, P. G., Ramirez-Venegas, A., Sansores, R. H., Alva, L. F., McDougall, J. E., Sin, D. D., Paré, P. D., Müller, N. L., Silva, C. I. S., Rojas, C. E., & Coxson, H. O.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2013-10-10
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
725-734
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2124178059
Cited by
196
References
5
FWCI
10.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: COPD phenotypes in biomass smoke-versus tobacco smoke-exposed Mexican women. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.00206112
The paper
Camp, P. G., Ramirez-Venegas, A., Sansores, R. H., Alva, L. F., McDougall, J. E., Sin, D. D., Paré, P. D., Müller, N. L., Silva, C. I. S., Rojas, C. E., & Coxson, H. O. (2014). COPD phenotypes in biomass smoke-versus tobacco smoke-exposed Mexican women. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00206112

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.