MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010890173 · doi:10.15326/jcopdf.3.1.2015.0148

Overall and Cardiovascular Safety of Aclidinium Bromide in Patients With COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Six Phase III, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Studies

2016· article· en· W3010890173 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth R. Chapman, Ekkehard Beck, Daniel Alcaide, Esther García Gil

Bibliographic record

VenueChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases Journal of the COPD Foundation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMuscarinic antagonistPlaceboMedicineCOPDAntagonistPooled analysisInternal medicinePharmacologyMuscarinic acetylcholine receptorRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaMeta-analysisReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

-receptor-selective, twice-daily (BID), long-acting muscarinic antagonist, is rapidly hydrolyzed in human plasma, resulting in low systemic exposure and urinary excretion. We evaluated the overall and cardiovascular (CV) safety of aclidinium in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by pooling data from 6 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies of ≥1 month's duration. METHODS: : Aclidinium 400µg BID has a good safety profile and this pooled analysis found no evidence of increased CV or cerebrovascular risk compared with placebo in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Further studies are needed in high-risk patients.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.015
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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