Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most randomised trials of newer and established medications in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) enrol patients who have already been treated, often with drugs of the same class or even with the very same drugs that are to be studied. Some trials such as UPLIFT evaluated the effect of a drug as an add-on, with patients continuing their existing treatments [1]. Other trials, such as OPTIMAL and the Salford Lung Study, discontinued the regular maintenance treatment and replaced it with a randomly allocated active treatment [2, 3]. Finally, trials such as TORCH and SUMMIT had patients discontinue their regular maintenance treatment and directly receive the randomly allocated treatment, which included placebo [4, 5]. This last approach, however, has been shown to complicate the interpretation of results, particularly under the placebo group after the discontinuation of maintenance therapy [6, 7]. Randomised trials of COPD medications involving a “run-in” period could be biased: interpret results with caution
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 | 0.221 | 0.551 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".