A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Tiotropium in Canadian Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who smoke have a greater annual rate of decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) than those patients who have stopped smoking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of tiotropium on pre-dose (trough) FEV(1) in patients with COPD followed in Canada. METHODS: A total of 913 patients were randomly assigned to receive either tiotropium 18 mug once daily (n=608) or placebo (usual care minus inhaled anticholinergics) (n=305) for 48 weeks in the present randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. The effect of tiotropium on measurements of lung function (FEV(1), FEV(6) and forced vital capacity), symptoms, health-related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire) and exacerbations were examined. RESULTS: Tiotropium improved trough FEV(1) in both current and ex-smokers compared with placebo. Baseline FEV(1) in smokers and ex-smokers was 1.03 L and 0.93 L, respectively (P<0.001). At week 48, the mean difference between the tiotropium and placebo groups was 0.14+/-0.04 L (P<0.001) in the smoker group and 0.08+/-0.02 L (P<0.0001) in the ex-smoker group. Tiotropium also significantly improved trough forced vital capacity and FEV(6) compared with placebo throughout the treatment period (P<0.05, for all). Furthermore, tiotropium significantly improved the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score compared with placebo at week 48 (40.9 versus 43.7 units, P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the placebo group, tiotropium provides sustained improvements in lung function in patients with COPD, with improvements for smokers and ex-smokers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".