Pharmacotherapy for Mortality Reduction in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite rapid advances in our understanding of its pathophysiology, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains incurable. Although bronchodilators and theophyllines are commonly used to treat symptoms of dyspnea and cough and to acutely improve lung function, they do not modify the long-term decline in FEV(1). The principal goals of current COPD pharmacotherapy are to reduce exacerbations, improve health status, and prolong survival. There is strong evidence, including data from randomized clinical trials, that indicates inhaled corticosteroids alone, or in combination with a long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist, improve patient symptoms, reduce morbidity, and perhaps even prolong survival in COPD. A recent individual patient-based meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD indicated that mortality over 3-4 yr was 27% lower in the group that received inhaled corticosteroids compared with the group that received placebo. Several short-term follow-up trials have also suggested a reduction in mortality with a combination of long-acting beta(2)-agonist and inhaled corticosteroids, and a large, long-term study that is currently ongoing (the Toward a Revolution in COPD Health [TORCH] study) will provide data on the effects of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol in combination on all-cause mortality. This article reviews some of the relevant epidemiologic and pathophysiologic processes that affect mortality in COPD and critically examines the effect of current COPD therapies on mortality.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".