Magnesium Administration For COPD Exacerbation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of magnesium in patients with acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation remains to be determined. AIM We aim to explore the effect of magnesium on COPD exacerbation, as well as its impact on pulmonary function tests and on hospital admissions for acute exacerbation in the emergency department. METHODS This is a systematic review and meta-analysis that included a search of the keywords "magnesium" and "COPD" on PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane databases, and Gray literature (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) from 1963 to May 2021. RESULTS The use of IV magnesium reduced the risk ratio for admission RR= 0.85 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.17). The combined risk ratio for admission increased to 0.95 when we added nebulised magnesium sulphate (95% CI 0.85 to 1.07), p>0.05. The mean score for improvement after IV magnesium was higher (M=16.75, SD=5.11) than the mean score before its administration (M=8.74, SD=8.85), t(4)=-2.57, p=0.031. Thus, the use of IV magnesium sulphate results in a 91.64% improvement in the pulmonary function test. CONCLUSION IV magnesium sulphate improves the pulmonary function test of patients with acute COPD exacerbation in the ED, and possibly reduces the admission rate.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".