Reduced risk of next exacerbation and mortality associated with antibiotic use in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The long-term risk of a subsequent exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after treatment with oral corticosteroids without (OS) or with antibiotics (OSA) was compared in a historical general practice-based cohort. Eligible patients were >/=50 yrs of age, had a registered diagnosis of COPD, were on maintenance respiratory drugs, and had experienced at least one exacerbation defined as a prescription OS or OSA. Times to second and third exacerbations were assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis; the risk of a subsequent exacerbation was assessed in a Cox proportional hazards analysis; and all-cause mortality was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazards analyses. A total of 842 patients had one or more exacerbations. The median time from first to second exacerbation was comparable for the OS and OSA groups, but the time from second to third exacerbation differed: 189 versus 258 days, respectively. The protective effect of OSA was most pronounced during the first 3 months following treatment (hazards ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.83). Exposure to antibiotics unrelated to a course of oral corticosteroids almost halved the risk of a new exacerbation. Mortality during follow-up was considerably lower in the OSA group. Adding antibiotics to oral corticosteroids was associated with: reduced risk of subsequent exacerbation, particularly in patients with recurrent exacerbations; and reduced risk of all-cause mortality.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".