Methylxanthines in COPD: yes to caffeine, no to theophylline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many readers of this journal and many of our patients will partake of a daily dose of 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine, perhaps in the form of drip coffee, espresso, Yerba mate, or Oolong tea. Several decades ago, medical providers would have commonly followed their morning caffeinated beverage by prescribing oral 1,3-dimethylxanthine, also known as theophylline, to many of their patients with COPD. With subsequent development of more effective and less toxic inhaler-based treatments for COPD, theophylline use has dramatically decreased in high-income countries, but not in low-to-middle income countries (LMICs). Nevertheless, interest in theophyllines persisted, particularly in patients with COPD, for whom experimental data suggested potential anti-inflammatory and steroid-potentiating effects in low doses [1]. Worldwide, theophylline is still one of the most widely used COPD medications in clinical practice. In a sample of 210 COPD patients in Taiwan, for example, investigators showed that methylxanthines were more commonly prescribed than long-acting β-agonists [2]. The authors of this editorial strongly recommend against the use of daily low-dose theophyllines for patients with COPD
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".