The role of beta-blockers in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of beta-blockers in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is controversial, primarily due to concerns that they may worsen lung function and attenuate bronchodilator response. Areas covered: This review summarizes the reasons for and against the use of beta-blockers in COPD by evaluating the literature on the effects of these drugs on lung function, exacerbation rate, and mortality. The safety of beta-blockers in COPD patients with concomitant heart failure, an entity that is not always distinguishable from COPD exacerbations, is also explored. Expert commentary: The use of cardioselective beta-blockers appears safe in the management of cardiac comorbidities associated with COPD and may lower exacerbation and mortality risk. There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating the safety of beta-blockers in patients with acute heart failure, acute respiratory failure or sepsis, entities that could occur simultaneously with COPD exacerbations. However, randomized controlled trials are still lacking to confirm these results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".