Anticholinergic medications for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
burden of COPD and that they address any demographic dis-parities in patients ’ use of resources. These data would help cli-nicians and other health care professionals in developing dis-ease-management programs that best suit a specific population. Bronchodilators are the mainstay for managing the symptoms of COPD.9,14 They may be prescribed on an as-needed basis at early stages of disease, but typically they should be given as scheduled maintenance therapy in patients with persistent symp-toms. Some bronchodilators are delivered by metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) that contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as propellants. However, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which has been signed by more than 165 countries, calls for the phased withdrawal of CFC-containing MDIs.15 Accordingly, many COPD patients will need to be switched to newer formulations and delivery systems. Most recently, ipratropium bromide (Atrovent HFA [hydro-fluoroalkane], Boehringer Ingelheim) has become available in a CFC-free MDI, and a once-daily anticholinergic, tiotropium (Spiriva, Boehringer Ingelheim), is available as a dry powder. The advent of these new formulations provides an opportune time to reassess inhaled anticholinergic therapies in COPD. Combination products containing ipratropium plus the short-acting beta2-agonist albuterol sulfate are also available in the U.S.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.008 |
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".