Inhaled Corticosteroids and the Risk of Mortality and Readmission In Elderly Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable controversy concerning the utility of inhaled corticosteroids for the long-term treatment of patients with COPD. Recent studies have suggested that although inhaled corticosteroids do not alter the rate of decline in lung function, they may reduce airway hyperresponsiveness, decrease the frequency of exacerbations, and slow the rate of decline in the patients' health status. The relationship between inhaled corticosteroids and subsequent risk of hospitalization or mortality remains unknown. We therefore conducted a population-based cohort study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada (n = 22,620) to determine the association between inhaled corticosteroid therapy and the combined risk of repeat hospitalization and all-cause mortality in elderly patients with COPD. Patients who received inhaled corticosteroid therapy postdischarge (within 90 d) had 24% fewer repeat hospitalizations for COPD (95% confidence interval [CI], 22 to 35%) and were 29% less likely to experience mortality (95% CI, 22 to 35%) during 1 yr of follow-up after adjustment for various confounding factors. This cohort study has suggested that inhaled corticosteroid therapy is associated with reduced COPD-related morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. Although not definitive, because of the observational nature of these findings, these data provide a compelling rationale for a large randomized trial to determine the effect of inhaled corticosteroids on COPD-related morbidity and 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".