Locus of Symptom Limitation and Exercise Response to Bronchodilation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We previously reported that the occurrence of contractile fatigue of the quadriceps during exercise in patients with COPD reduced the likelihood of acute bronchodilation to improve the endurance time to constant work rate exercise. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether the perception of dyspnea and leg fatigue during exercise could be used to predict the exercise response to acute bronchodilation in this population. Methods: Sixty-eight patients with COPD performed either two constant work-rate cycling exercises or two endurance shuttle walking tests. These tests were preceded by nebulization of placebo or 500 mg ipratropium bromide. Changes in FEV1 and in the endurance time with bronchodilation were measured. The changes in quadriceps twitch force after exercise were evaluated. In addition, we assessed dyspnea and perception of leg fatigue on Borg scale as well as the locus of exercise limitation (dyspnea, leg fatigue, or both). Results: The locus of symptom limitation was useful to predict the exercise response to bronchodilation; patients stopping exercise because of leg fatigue or due to a combination of dyspnea/leg fatigue showed a smaller improvement in endurance time to constant work rate exercise with bronchodilation compared with those stopping because of dyspnea. Subjective and objective evidences of fatigue were related: patients who stopped exercising because of leg fatigue showed a larger fall in quadriceps twitch force compared to patients who stopped for dyspnea. Conclusion: The assessment of the locus of symptom limitation during constant work rate exercise is useful to predict the improvement in endurance time following acute bronchodilation in patients with COPD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".