Inhaled Corticosteroids in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains controversial. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, medication withdrawal studies, and observational reports have examined this question, with mixed results. Observational studies have been subject to criticism because of study design involving immortal time bias. Some randomized controlled trials suggest small benefits in lung function and health status, and a reduction in the rate of acute exacerbations of COPD and mortality, but their incomplete follow-up and statistical methods have been criticized. The greatest benefits of ICS in COPD have been reported with use of ICS and long-acting beta-agonist combination therapy, although no benefit was found for the primary outcome studied under the most rigorous methodology by the recent TORCH and Optimal randomized trials. Thus, although future randomized trials will need to be conducted with the most rigorous methodology for all outcomes, much uncertainty remains regarding the potential benefits of ICS in 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".