MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193600518 · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(21)00130-8

Personalising add-on treatment with inhaled corticosteroids in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a benefit–harm modelling study

2021· article· en· W3193600518 on OpenAlex
Henock G. Yebyo, Julia Braun, Dominik Menges, Gerben ter Riet, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Milo A. Puhan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversität Zürich
KeywordsMedicineLamaExacerbationInternal medicineInhalationCOPDAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: -agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is unclear, we evaluated this addition for a range of patient profiles. METHODS: Analyses considered the effects of low-to-moderate doses of inhaled corticosteroids, LABA, and LAMA compared with LABA and LAMA alone, outcome incidences, and preference weights assigned to averted moderate-to-severe exacerbations (benefit) and severe pneumonia, candidiasis, and dysphonia (harm). Using exponential models, we estimated the preference weight-adjusted 2-year net clinical benefit (ie, benefits outweighing harms) indices. Exacerbation risk thresholds for triggering inhaled corticosteroids, LABA, and LAMA were established when the probability of a 2-year net clinical benefit reached 60%. We estimated the proportion of patients benefiting from added inhaled corticosteroids using an externally validated prediction model for acute exacerbations in primary care. FINDINGS: Adding low-to-moderate dose inhaled corticosteroids to LABA and LAMA provided a net clinical benefit in patients with a 2-year baseline exacerbation risk of 54-83%. Low-dose inhaled corticosteroids showed a net clinical benefit if the baseline risk was 40-91%, but not at higher doses. The benefit was modified by blood eosinophil count (BEC) and age. Although no net benefit was associated with a BEC of less than 150 cells per μL, patients with a BEC of 150 cells per μL or more had a net benefit from low-dose inhaled corticosteroids with a 2-year exacerbation risk of 32-95% in those aged 40-79 years and 41-93% in those older than 80 years. A moderate dose of inhaled corticosteroids showed a net benefit in patients younger than 80 years with a BEC of 150 cells per μL or more at 52-86% 2-year exacerbation risk. Depending on the subgroups, the proportion of patients with a net benefit from added inhaled corticosteroids ranged from 0 to 68%. INTERPRETATION: The net clinical benefit of adding different inhaled corticosteroid doses to LABA and LAMA varies greatly with exacerbation risk, BEC, and age. Personalised treatment decisions based on these factors and predicted exacerbation risks might reduce overtreatment and undertreatment with inhaled corticosteroids. FUNDING: None.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.258 · 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