MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771250371 · doi:10.15326/jcopdf.5.1.2017.0149

Long-Term Evaluation of the Effects of Aclidinium Bromide on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events and COPD Exacerbations in Patients with Moderate to Very Severe COPD: Rationale and Design of the ASCENT COPD Study

2017· article· en· W2771250371 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert A. Wise, Kenneth R. Chapman, Benjamin M. Scirica, David Schoenfeld, Deepak L. Bhatt, Sami Z. Daoud, Beatriz Seoane, Colin Reisner, Esther García Gil

Bibliographic record

VenueChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases Journal of the COPD Foundation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineCOPDTiotropium bromideInternal medicineAdverse effectCoronary artery diseasePlaceboPopulationCardiologyPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineLung functionLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(ASCENT COPD) study (NCT01966107) is being conducted at 500 sites in the United States and Canada. The primary objectives are to evaluate the long-term effects of twice-daily aclidinium bromide 400 µg on CV safety and exacerbations in patients with moderate to very severe COPD with a history of cerebrovascular, coronary, or peripheral artery disease, or the presence of ≥2 atherothrombotic risk factors. The primary safety and efficacy variables are time to first major adverse CV event (MACE) (on-study analysis) and rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations during the first year of treatment (on-treatment analysis), respectively. The study will be terminated after approximately 122 MACE have occurred.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases Journal of the COPD FoundationSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207