Inhaled corticosteroids and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: does the dose matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent data suggest that inhaled corticosteroids reduce the number of clinical exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It remains unknown whether a dose/response relationship exists. The present study was conducted to evaluate the long-term impact of varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids on COPD mortality. Hospital discharge data were used to identify all patients aged > or = 65 yrs recently hospitalised due to COPD in Alberta, Canada (n = 6,740). The relative risk (RR) for all-cause mortality was compared across different dose categories of inhaled corticosteroids (none and low, medium and high doses) following hospital discharge. Inhaled corticosteroid therapy after discharge was associated with a 25% relative reduction in risk for all-cause mortality (RR 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.82). Patients on medium- or high-dose therapy showed lower risks for mortality than those on low doses (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86 for low dose; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37-0.63 for medium dose; and RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44-0.69 for high dose). Use of inhaled corticosteroids following hospital discharge for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with a significant reduction in the overall mortality rate. Low- was inferior to medium- or high-dose therapy in protecting against mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".