COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Inhaled Long-Acting -Agonists Versus Anticholinergics in Older Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
death and hospitalizations in patients aged 66 years or older with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who fill a first pre-scription for the long-acting anticholinergic tiotropium bromide compared with patients who do so for a long-acting -agonist. These results were based on information from health administrative data-bases in Ontario, Canada, and contrast with the authors ’ previous findings (2). Gershon and colleagues acknowledge the inherent limitations of this retrospective database analysis and conclude that “[f]urther re-search is needed to confirm these findings... in a randomized, con-trolled trial. ” We would like to note that this suggested “further research ” has already been performed and published in the POET-COPD (Prevention of Exacerbations with Tiotropium in COPD) study (3), a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial that directly compared tiotropium bromide with the long-acting -agonist salme-
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 | 0.014 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.005 |
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".