Glycopyrronium (GLY) and tiotropium (TIO) comparison: Lung function, dyspnea and health status in COPD patients in all GOLD groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhaled LAMAs are recommended for COPD patients in all GOLD groups (A,B,C&D)1. GLY 50µg is effective and well tolerated in moderate-to-severe COPD patients, similar to TIO 18µg, and with faster onset and better bronchodilation in the first 4h after the first dose. The effect of GLY and TIO in patients categorized by GOLD group was analyzed post hoc using data from 4 randomized controlled clinical trials pooled and adjusted using mix-model. GOLD classification was done based on baseline St George9s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (cut point=25) and lung function (FEV1; </> 50% predicted normal) without baseline exacerbation risk. Efficacy of GLY and TIO was analyzed by mean change from baseline at 12 wks for trough FEV1(tFEV1), SGRQ score, and TDI score. Of 2599 patients (GLY=1628, TIO=971), 7.6%, 52.6%, 2.8% and 37.0% were classed in GOLD groups A, B, C and D respectively. GLY showed significant improvement in tFEV1 in patients in all groups after 12 treatment wks compared with baseline; TIO showed significant improvement only in B&D groups. In group A, GLY was significantly better than TIO [least square means difference for tFEV1 GLY vs TIO: 75 ml (CI: 25, 125; p=0.0036)]. GLY significantly improved dyspnea in patients in all GOLD groups, similar to TIO. GLY and TIO showed similar and significant improvement in SGRQ only in GOLD groups B&D. In conclusion, GLY and TIO significantly improved dyspnea (in all GOLD groups) and health status (GOLD Groups B&D). GLY provided significant improvement in tFEV1 in patients in all GOLD groups, while TIO showed statistically significant improvement in tFEV1 only in patients in group B&D. GOLD 2015.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".