Responsiveness to Ipratropium Bromide in Male and Female Patients with Mild to Moderate Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Although the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is similar between men and women, current evidence used to support bronchodilator therapy has been generated in therapeutic trials that have predominately enrolled male patients. Here, we determined whether there is any significant sex-related differences in FEV 1 responses to ipratropium bromide. Methods Data from the Lung Health Study (n=5887; 37% females) were used to determine changes in FEV 1 with ipratropium or placebo in male and female subjects with mild to moderate COPD over 5years. Lung Expression Quantitative Trait Loci (eQTL) dataset was used to determine whether there were any sex-related differences in gene expression for muscarinic (M2 and M3) receptors in lungs of male and female patients. Results After 4months, ipratropium therapy increased FEV 1 by 6.0% in female and 2.9% in male subjects from baseline values (p=2.42×10 −16 ). This effect was modified by body mass index (BMI) such that the biggest improvements in FEV 1 with ipratropium were observed in thin female subjects (p for BMI∗sex interaction=0.044). The sex-related changes in FEV 1 related to ipratropium persisted for 2years (p=0.0134). Female compared with male lungs had greater gene expression for M3 relative to M2 receptors (p=6.86×10 −8 ). Conclusion Ipratropium induces a larger bronchodilator response in female than in male patients and the benefits are particularly notable in non-obese females. Female lungs have greater gene expression for the M3 muscarinic receptor relative to M2 receptors than male lungs. Female patients are thus more likely to benefit from ipratropium than male 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".