Effect of inhaled bronchodilators on inspiratory capacity and dyspnoea at rest in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been shown that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) develop dynamic hyperinflation (DH), which contributes to dyspnoea and exercise intolerance. Formoterol, salmeterol and oxitropium have been recommended for maintenance therapy in COPD patients, but their effect on DH has only been assessed for salmeterol. The aim of the present study was to compare the acute effect of four inhaled bronchodilators (salbutamol, formoterol, salmeterol and oxitropium) and placebo on forced expiratory volume in one second, inspiratory capacity, forced vital capacity and dyspnoea in COPD patients. A cross-over, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was carried out on 20 COPD patients. Patients underwent pulmonary function testing and dyspnoea evaluation, in basal condition and 5, 15, 30, 60 and 120 min after bronchodilator or placebo administration. The results indicate that in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with decreased baseline inspiratory capacity, there was a much greater increase of inspiratory capacity after bronchodilator administration, which correlated closely with the improvement of dyspnoea sensation at rest. For all bronchodilators used, inspiratory capacity reversibility should be tested at 30 min following the bronchodilator. On average, formoterol elicited the greatest increase in inspiratory capacity than the other bronchodilators used, though the difference was significant only with salmeterol and oxitropium. The potential advantage of formoterol needs to be tested in a larger patient population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".