Inhaled corticosteroids and the risk of a first exacerbation in COPD patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthma is well established, but their benefit in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is still controversial. The current study assessed whether ICS are effective in preventing a first exacerbation of COPD. A cohort of newly treated COPD patients was formed from the Administrative Databases of Saskatchewan Health. The outcome was the occurrence of a first moderate or severe exacerbation from 1990-1999. Moderate exacerbations involved prescriptions for an antibiotic and an oral corticosteroid on the same day. Severe exacerbations were hospitalisations with a primary discharge diagnosis of COPD. A nested case-control design was used and matched on year of birth and cohort entry. Rate ratios (RR) were further adjusted for use of other medication and other confounders. There were 995 exacerbations among 4,455 subjects. The rate of a first exacerbation was increased with any use of ICS in the year prior to the index date (RR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.08-1.48) and with current use (RR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.22-1.87), and it increased with increasing daily doses of ICS. Inhaled corticosteroids do not seem to be beneficial in reducing the risk of a first exacerbation of 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".