Inhaled Long-Acting β-Agonists Versus Anticholinergics in Older Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters18 October 2011Inhaled Long-Acting β-Agonists Versus Anticholinergics in Older Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseMatthew B. Stanbrook, MD, PhD and Andrea Gershon, MD, MScMatthew B. Stanbrook, MD, PhDFrom University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5T 2S8, Canada, and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada.Search for more papers by this author and Andrea Gershon, MD, MScFrom University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5T 2S8, Canada, and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00019 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail IN RESPONSE:We thank Dr. Fabbri and colleagues for their comments and congratulate them on successfully conducting the POET-COPD study (1), which was published when our paper was in press. The POET-COPD study adds valuable new evidence to our understanding of the comparative efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators in patients with COPD. However, it is important to recognize that its findings do not necessarily contradict those of our paper because of key differences between the 2 studies—most notably differences in study population, design, and outcomes.The most salient difference is in study populations. The POET-COPD study, like virtually all such randomized ...References1. Vogelmeier C, Hederer B, Glaab T, Schmidt H, Rutten-van Mölken MP, Beeh KM, et al; POET-COPD Investigators. Tiotropium versus salmeterol for the prevention of exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1093-1103. [PMID: 21428765] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD. 2010. Accessed at www.goldcopd.org\\guidelines-global-strategy-for-diagnosis-management.html on 15 September 2011. Google Scholar3. Juurlink DN, Mamdani MM, Lee DS, Kopp A, Austin PC, Laupacis A, et al. Rates of hyperkalemia after publication of the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:543-51. [PMID: 15295047] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Matthew B. Stanbrook, MD, PhD; Andrea Gershon, MD, MScAffiliations: From University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5T 2S8, Canada, and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada.Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M10-1643. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoComparison of Inhaled Long-Acting β-Agonist and Anticholinergic Effectiveness in Older Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Andrea Gershon , Ruth Croxford , Teresa To , Matthew B. Stanbrook , Ross Upshur , Paula Sanchez-Romeu , and Thérèse Stukel Inhaled Long-Acting β-Agonists Versus Anticholinergics in Older Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Leonardo M. Fabbri , Claus Vogelmeier , and Klaus F. Rabe Metrics 18 October 2011Volume 155, Issue 8Page: 561-562KeywordsBronchodilatorsCohort studiesConflicts of interestDisclosureDrug therapyHeart failureLongitudinal studiesMortalityMyocardial infarctionRandomized trials ePublished: 18 October 2011 Issue Published: 18 October 2011 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2011 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".