Effect of 12 weeks of once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol on exercise endurance during constant work-rate cycling and endurance shuttle walking in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: study evaluated the effects of tiotropium/olodaterol versus placebo on endurance time during constant work-rate cycling and constant speed shuttle walking in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after 12 weeks of treatment. METHODS: The effects of once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (2.5/5 and 5/5 μg) on endurance time during constant work-rate cycle ergometry (CWRCE) after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment were compared with placebo in patients with COPD in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. Endurance time during the endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT) after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment was also evaluated in a subset of patients. RESULTS: A total of 404 patients received treatment, with 165 participating in the ESWT substudy. A statistically significant improvement in endurance time during CWRCE was observed after 12 weeks (primary endpoint) with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg [14% ( p = 0.02)] but not with tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 µg [9% ( p = 0.14)] versus placebo. In the ESWT substudy, a trend to improvement in endurance time during ESWT after 12 weeks (key secondary endpoint) was observed with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg [21% ( p = 0.055)] and tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 µg [21% ( p = 0.056)] versus placebo. CONCLUSION: Tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg improved endurance time during cycle ergometry versus placebo, with a strong tendency to also improve walking endurance time. [ ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01525615.].
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".