A re-evaluation of the role of inhaled corticosteroids in the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (in fixed combinations with long-acting β2-agonists [LABAs]) are frequently prescribed for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), outside their labeled indications and recommended treatment strategies and guidelines, despite having the potential to cause significant side effects. AREAS COVERED: Although the existence of asthma in patients with asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) clearly supports the use of anti-inflammatory treatment (typically an ICS/LABA combination, as ICS monotherapy is usually not indicated for COPD), the current level of ICS/LABA use is not consistent with the prevalence of ACOS in the COPD population. Data have recently become available showing the comparative efficacy of fixed bronchodilator combinations (long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]/LABA with ICS/LABA combinations). Additionally, new information has emerged on ICS withdrawal without increased risk of exacerbations, under cover of effective bronchodilation. EXPERT OPINION: For patients with COPD who do not have ACOS, a LAMA/LABA combination may be an appropriate starting therapy, apart from those with mild disease who can be managed with a single long-acting bronchodilator. Patients who remain symptomatic or present with exacerbations despite effectively delivered LAMA/LABA treatment may require additional drug therapy, such as ICS or phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors. When prescribing an ICS/LABA, the risk:benefit ratio should be considered in individual patients.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".