Are there specific clinical characteristics associated with physician’s treatment choices in COPD?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of pharmacological agents and guidelines available for COPD has increased markedly but guidelines remain poorly followed. Understanding underlying clinical reasoning is challenging and could be informed by clinical characteristics associated with treatment prescriptions. METHODS: To determine whether COPD treatment choices by respiratory physicians correspond to specific patients' features, this study was performed in 1171 patients who had complete treatment and clinical characterisation data. Multiple statistical models were applied to explain five treatment categories: A: no COPD treatment or short-acting bronchodilator(s) only; B: one long-acting bronchodilator (beta2 agonist, LABA or anticholinergic agent, LAMA); C: LABA+LAMA; D: a LABA or LAMA + inhaled corticosteroid (ICS); E: triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+ICS). RESULTS: Mean FEV1 was 60% predicted. Triple therapy was prescribed to 32.9% (treatment category E) of patients and 29.8% received a combination of two treatments (treatment categories C or D); ICS-containing regimen were present for 44% of patients altogether. Single or dual bronchodilation were less frequently used (treatment categories B and C: 19% each). While lung function was associated with all treatment decisions, exacerbation history, scores of clinical impact and gender were associated with the prescription of > 1 maintenance treatment. Statistical models could predict treatment decisions with a < 35% error rate. CONCLUSION: In COPD, contrary to what has been previously reported in some studies, treatment choices by respiratory physicians appear rather rational since they can be largely explained by the patients' characteristics proposed to guide them in most recommendations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".