MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214036180 · doi:10.1055/s-0041-1723356

Characterising patients with COPD by baseline short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) use: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX trial

2021· article· en· W3214036180 on OpenAlexaff
Claus Vogelmeier, Edward Kerwin, I. Boucot, Leif Bjermer, François Maltais, Paul D. Jones, Lee Tombs, David A. Lipson, Chris Compton

Bibliographic record

VenuePneumologie · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-hoc analysisPost hocBaseline (sea)COPDMedicineAgonistComputer scienceInternal medicineBiologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Claus Vogelmeier is presenting the data in German on behalf of all the authors with their permissions. The abstract was originally presented at the European Respiratory Society 2020 Virtual Meeting. Sep 5 – 9, 2020. European Respiratory Journal. 2020;56 : 982. Background: Patients with COPD vary in their use of SABA medication; but it is not clear which patient characteristics are associated with high or low baseline SABA use. The aim is to investigate patient characteristics associated with high and low baseline SABA use in the EMAX trial. Methods: This post hoc analysis compared baseline characteristics for patients with high (≥ 4 puffs/day) versus low (< 4 puffs/day) baseline SABA use using a t -test for continuous variables and Fisherʼs exact test for categorical variables. Results: Aside from sex (p = 0.181) and exacerbation history in the prior year (p = 0.284), all assessed baseline characteristics were significantly different between the high and low SABA user subgroups (p < 0.001). A greater proportion of high SABA users were maintenance naïve and had more severe disease, higher symptom burden and more severe airflow limitation than low SABA users ([ Table 1 ]). Tab. 1 Characteristic SABA use < 4 puffs/day (N = 1975) SABA use ≥ 4 puffs/day (N = 443) p-value Age (years), means (SD) 65.1 (8.5) 62.7 (8.2) < 0.001 Female, n (%) 790 (40) 193 (44) 0.181 Duration COPD (years), mean (SD) 8.1 (6.6) 9.2 (6.3) < 0.001 Maintenance naive, n (%) 539 (27) 209 (47) < 0.001 Trough FEV 1 (mL), mean (SD) 1520 (516) 1362 (502) < 0.001 Post-BD % predicted FEV 1 , mean (SD) 56.3 (12.6) 51.7 (12.8) < 0.001 GOLD grade, n (%) Grade 2 (moderate) 1336 (68) 229 (52) < 0.001 Grade 3 (severe) 634 (32) 214 (48) < 0.001 CAT score, mean (SD) 18.5 (5.8) 22.3 (6.7) < 0.001 SAC BDI focal score, mean (SD) 7.1 (1.8) 6.4 (2.1) < 0.001 E-RS total score, mean (SD) 9.8 (5.3) 14.2 (6.0) < 0.001 SGRQ total score, mean (SD) 43.0 (15.5) 52.1 (16.8) < 0.001 1 moderate COPD exacerbation history in prior year, n (%) 311 (16) 79 (18) 0.284 Conclusion: High SABA use is a marker of worse lung function, symptom severity and health status compared with low SABA use. Publication History Article published online: 30 April 2021 © 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePneumologieSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207