Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bronchiectasis is a progressive condition characterised by irreversible destruction and dilatation of airways, generally associated with chronic bacterial infection. The two distinct therapeutic goals are: symptom control and reduction in morbidity; and prevention of progression of the underlying disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether regular inhaled corticosteroids produce improvement in symptom control and whether they beneficially influence the natural history of the disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Airways Group RCT register and Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register were searched using the following search terms; bronchiectasis AND [corticosteroid* OR beclomethasone OR budesonide OR fluticasone OR triamcinolone OR flunisolide]. Bibliographies of each included RCT was searched for additional trials. Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture inhaled corticosteroids were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised double blind studies controlled trials were included. Patients with radiographic evidence of bronchiectasis were included, but patients with cystic fibrosis were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was extracted by one of the reviewers (FR). Continuous outcomes were analysed as effect sizes (weighted mean difference or as standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals). MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials on a total of 54 patients could be included. The studies were of 4 and 6 weeks duration. Inhaled corticosteroids had no significant effect on any of the outcomes included in this review, however there was a trend towards improving: FEV1, FVC, PEFR, RV and DLco. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In bronchiectasis, regular use of inhaled corticosteroids may improve lung function. The available studies were too short and too small to provide any clear evidence to guide practice. Larger and longer studies should include rate of decline of lung function, exacerbation frequency, hospitalisations and healthy status as outcomes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".