MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418356692 · doi:10.1080/14740338.2016.1199682

Tiotropium for the treatment of asthma: a drug safety evaluation

2016· review· en· W2418356692 on OpenAlexaff
Huib A.M. Kerstjens, Paul M. O’Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Safety · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnticholinergicSalmeterolAsthmaBronchodilatorTiotropium bromideClinical trialPlaceboIntensive care medicineAdverse effectAnesthesiaPharmacologyInternal medicineAlternative medicineLung functionLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Tiotropium, a once-daily long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator, has recently been approved for use in the treatment of asthma in a number of countries, including the EU and the USA, and was incorporated into the 2015 update of the Global Initiative for Asthma treatment guidelines. Here we review safety data from published clinical trials to help inform the use of tiotropium in the treatment of patients with asthma. AREAS COVERED: Safety data from recently published clinical trials, which compared tiotropium with placebo or an active control, were reviewed. Trials included children, adolescents, and adults across severities of symptomatic asthma, and assessed tiotropium delivered via the Respimat and HandiHaler devices. EXPERT OPINION: Based on the reviewed scientific evidence, tiotropium is a safe and well-tolerated long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator for use in the treatment of asthma. In the trials assessed, the safety of tiotropium was found to be comparable with that of placebo and alternative therapeutic options, including a doubling in the dose of inhaled corticosteroids and the long-acting β2-agonist salmeterol.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug SafetySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207