Tiotropium improves walking endurance in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a 3-week treatment with tiotropium on walking capacity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). After familiarisation with study procedures, 36 patients were randomised to receive tiotropium 18 μg once daily or a matching placebo in a double-blind, parallel-group study. Pre- (trough) and 2-h post-dose pulmonary function was measured. An endurance shuttle walk was then completed. The same procedures were repeated after 3 weeks of treatment. Ventilatory parameters were monitored during exercise. At 3 weeks, tiotropium significantly improved walking endurance time in comparison with placebo, with a mean±sd between-group difference of 128±141 s (p=0.017). At 3 weeks, trough values for forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were significantly improved with tiotropium in comparison with placebo. The post-dose response to tiotropium was statistically superior to placebo after the first dose and after 3 weeks of treatment for FEV(1), FVC and inspiratory capacity. Ventilation and tidal volume at the end of walking were significantly improved with tiotropium. 3 weeks of tiotropium resulted in a greater walking endurance in patients with COPD. Improvements in FEV(1), maximal ventilation and tidal volume may contribute to this enhanced exercise capacity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".