Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast, the Canadian data related to arrhythmias requiring hospital admission in the last 6 months. 1 Third, the cardiovascular and renal comorbidity exclusion criteria in UPLIFT were not used in major longterm COPD trials evaluating LABAS±ICS, such as the landmark TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health study, which had no specific cardiovascular or renal comorbidity exclusion criteria.4 In our view, the efficacy/safety profile of a COPD medication can only be determined if those patients who are at greatest risk of serious adverse events are studied.If this has not been done, then failing to list the characteristics of patients who were excluded from trial participation in the medication data sheet is unsatisfactory.We propose that the tiotropium data sheet 5 is amended to state that the favourable efficacy/safety profile of tiotropium HandiHaler established in the UPLIFT study applies only to patients without recent cardiovascular or renal comorbidity, as these patients were excluded from the study.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.054 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.015 |
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".