Nutritional supplementation for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low body weight in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with an impaired pulmonary status, reduced diaphragmatic mass, lower exercise capacity and higher mortality rate when compared to adequately nourished individuals with this disease. Nutritional support may therefore be a useful part of their comprehensive care. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to clarify whether nutritional supplementation (caloric supplementation for at least 2 weeks) improved anthropometric measures, pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength and functional exercise capacity in patients with stable COPD. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Airways Group register of RCTs, a hand-search of abstracts presented at international meetings and consultation with experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed quality and extracted the data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Within each trial and for each outcome, we calculated an effect size. The effect sizes were then pooled by a random-effects model. Homogeneity among the effect sizes was also tested. MAIN RESULTS: From 272 references, nine RCTs were ultimately included. Six papers were considered as high quality and only two studies were double-blinded. For each of the outcomes studied, the effect of nutritional support was small: the 95% confidence intervals around the pooled effect sizes all included zero. The effect of nutritional support was homogeneous across studies. An additional search conducted in August 2001 did not identify further studies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional support had no significant effect on anthropometric measures, lung function or exercise capacity in patients with stable COPD.
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 | 0.023 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".