Effects of combined tiotropium/olodaterol on inspiratory capacity and exercise endurance in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two replicate, double-blind, 6-week, incomplete-crossover studies (MORACTO 1 and 2) assessed the effects of tiotropium/olodaterol on inspiratory capacity and exercise endurance time in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. For each patient, four of five treatments were administered once daily for 6 weeks, with a 21-day washout between treatments: tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 µg or 5/5 µg, tiotropium 5 µg, olodaterol 5 µg or placebo, all via the Respimat inhaler. Primary outcomes were inspiratory capacity prior to exercise and exercise endurance time during constant work-rate cycle ergometry to symptom limitation at 75% of peak incremental work rate after 6 weeks (2 h post-dose). 295 and 291 patients were treated in MORACTO 1 and 2, respectively. Tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 and 5/5 µg provided significant improvements in inspiratory capacity versus placebo and monotherapies (p<0.0001), and significant improvements in exercise endurance time versus placebo (p<0.0001). Intensity of breathing discomfort was reduced following both doses of tiotropium/olodaterol versus placebo (p<0.0001). Once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol yielded improvements in lung hyperinflation versus placebo and statistically significant improvements versus monotherapies. Tiotropium/olodaterol also showed improvements in dyspnoea and exercise tolerance versus placebo but not consistently versus monotherapies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".