Low-dose inhaled corticosteroids and the risk of acute myocardial infarction in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflammation plays a major role in the development and complications of atherosclerosis. Here, the dose-related impact of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), used for their anti-inflammatory properties, on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is studied in a cohort of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Saskatchewan (Canada) health services databases were used to form a population-based cohort of 5,648 patients, > or =55 yrs, who received a first treatment for COPD between 1990 and 1997. A nested case-control analysis was conducted, where 371 cases presenting with a first AMI were matched with 1,864 controls, based on the date of cohort entry and age. A conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of ICS, after adjusting for use of oral corticosteroids, severity of COPD, sex, systemic hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ICS were used in the prior year by 42.2% of cases and 46.4% of controls. Overall, current use of ICS was not associated with a significant decrease in the risk of AMI. However, a 32% reduction in the risk of AMI was observed for doses ranging 50-200 microg x day(-1). In conclusion, very low doses of inhaled corticosteroids may be associated with a reduction in the risk of acute myocardial infarction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".