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, allviathe 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 capacityversusplacebo and monotherapies (p<0.0001), and significant improvements in exercise endurance timeversusplacebo (p<0.0001). Intensity of breathing discomfort was reduced following both doses of tiotropium/olodaterolversusplacebo (p<0.0001). Once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol yielded improvements in lung hyperinflationversusplacebo and statistically significant improvementsversusmonotherapies. Tiotropium/olodaterol also showed improvements in dyspnoea and exercise toleranceversusplacebo but not consistentlyversusmonotherapies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".