Role of Functional Indicators in the Multifactorial Pathologies in Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitatiion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients in cardiopulmonary rehabilitation often complain of exercise intolerance. While ventilatory limitation is often present, other factors are also important: cardiovascular deconditioning, respiratory muscle dysfunction, gas exchange abnormalities and ventricular dysfunction. Methods: Forty patients, hospitalized for a consecutive 6 month-period, with persistent exercise intolerance due to cardiopulmonary pathologies were included. 90% were COPD II to IV GOLD stage; 5% had chronic cardiac decompensation; 5% had undergone surgery for coronary bypass and/or cardiac valve prosthesis. Patients were excluded who were clinically unstable, unable to cooperate correctly, had arrythmia due to atrial fibrillation and/or receiving beta-blocking therapy. We have, furthermore, measured parameters of ventilatory dysfunction (ventilatory reserve, dynamic inspiratory capacity), the parameters of cardiovascular limitation (peak heart rate and recovery heart rate at the first minute), parametes of respiratory muscles dysfunction (maximal inspiratory pressure and at the end of the 6 min walking test). Afterwards we classified patients into three groups: ventilatory-limited, cardiovascular-limited, respiratory muscles-limited. Results: Exercise performance limitation resulted from ventilatory limitation in 60% of the patients, second by cardiovascular limitation in 30% of the patients and also by respiratory muscle limitation in 10% of the patients. Conclusions: Based on admission diagnosis of 40 patients, 90% were defined as subject to pulmonary rehabilitation and in 10% were receiving cardiac rehabilitation. They divided into three specific functional recovery programs: ventilatory function recovery program (60%), cardiac function recovery program (30%), respiratory muscles recovery program (10%).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".