Inhaled corticosteroids and hospitalisation due to exacerbation of COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have provided conflicting evidence as to the possible benefits of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Using the Saskatchewan healthcare databases subjects were identified who were aged > or = 55 yrs, initiating regular treatment for COPD but without any prior treatment for asthma. In the current nested case-control analysis, the authors concentrated on 1,742 subjects with a first hospitalisation for COPD after January 1, 1990 and examined whether the use of inhaled corticosteroids was associated with a change in the risk of a subsequent hospitalisation for COPD. The cases consisted of 846 patients with a subsequent hospitalisation for COPD. These were matched on age, time since the prior hospitalisation and use of other respiratory therapy to all possible person moments in the cohort without rehospitalisation. After further adjustment for comorbidity, sex, calendar year and intensity of other drug therapy, inhaled corticosteroids were not significantly associated with risk of a subsequent COPD hospitalisation. Even relatively high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, >800 microg of beclomethasone or the equivalent per day, were not associated with the risk of COPD hospitalisation. No reduction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations requiring hospitalisation, in relation to the use of inhaled corticosteroids, were observed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".