MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156391976 · doi:10.1586/17476348.2.5.539

Roflumilast: systemic therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

2008· article· en· W2156391976 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew McIvor

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Respiratory Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoflumilastMedicineCOPDSystemic inflammationAdverse effectInternal medicinePulmonary diseaseIntensive care medicineInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and is characterized by chronic inflammation in both the pulmonary compartment and the rest of the body. Phosphodiesterase type 4 is expressed in inflammatory cells involved in COPD; and the phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor roflumilast has been extensively evaluated in patients with this disease. Results from two large-scale, well-controlled clinical trials that included patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD have shown that once-daily administration of roflumilast significantly improves forced expiratory volume in 1 s and decreases exacerbations, particularly in patients with severe disease. Roflumilast is well tolerated with a low incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events that declines with continued treatment. In contrast to inhaled medications, which are the mainstay of COPD therapy, a systemic therapy is more likely to reach targets outside the lungs (e.g., the cardiovascular system) and may have the potential to decrease the severity of common comorbidities in COPD 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Respiratory MedicineSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207