Effects of inhaled furosemide on dyspnea and pulmonary function in people with COPD: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether inhaled furosemide can be effectively used in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to improve feelings of dyspnea and improve pulmonary function values. Methods: This literature review was conducted using randomized control trials and a literature review in which the participants consisted of or included patients with COPD receiving inhaled furosemide as a potential treatment option for their dyspnea and low pulmonary function values. Results: Searches in four databases and secondary sources using five key terms yielded 83 unduplicated articles. Ultimately, four studies, one of which was a literature review, were included which studied the short-term result of inhaled furosemide on dyspnea and pulmonary function values. All studies measured dyspnea as an outcome and three found a statistically significant improvement in patient reported symptoms. Pulmonary function values were measured in all studies which all found improvements. Conclusion: The effect of inhaled furosemide on the dyspnea and pulmonary function values in people with COPD remains uncertain, and questions have emerged regarding the long-term impact on these patients. While this therapy is promising for dyspnea relief and improvement of pulmonary function values in people with COPD, further consideration and additional data still need to be gathered.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".