Dyspnoea, respiratory muscle strength and hyperventilation in end-stage liver disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are scarce reports on respiratory muscle strength in end-stage liver disease patients. On the other hand, decreased PaCO 2 due to hyperventilation is well documented in patients with end-stage liver disease. Chronic dyspnoea is frequently reported by these patients, but it is not known if it is related to respiratory muscle strength and/or hyperventilation. We studied 48 consecutive, ambulatory, Caucasian patients (37 men) with end-stage liver disease, awaiting for liver transplantation. Chronic dyspnoea was rated according to the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) 6-point scale. Routine lung function tests, maximum static expiratory (Pemax) and inspiratory (Pimax) mouth pressures were measured. Pattern of breathing (V E : minute ventilation; V T : tidal volume; RR: respiratory rate; V T /T I : mean inspiratory flow; T I /T TOT : duty cycle; T I : duration of inspiration) was also measured. Forty-three patients reported some degree of dyspnoea (mean±SD). mMRC was 2±1.1, Pemax%pred was 106±33 and Pimax%pred was 91±28. These pressures were found below the normal limits in 13 and 16 patients, respectively. Furthermore, mMRC was significantly correlated with Pemax and Pimax (r=-0.49, p<0.001; r=-0.41, p<0.01, respectively). V E (11.5±3.4, l), V T (0.770±0.311, l), RR (16±4, bpm) and V T /T I (0.46±0.13, l sec -1 ) were increased and PaCO 2 (33±4, mmHg) was decreased, indicating hyperventilation. In contrast T I /T TOT (0.42±0.05) was normal. Statistically significant correlations were found for mMRC with T I and RR (r=-0.32, p=0.03; r=0.32, p=0.03; respectively). We conclude that in end-stage liver disease, there is an interrelationship between chronic dyspnoea, respiratory muscle strength, and hyperventilation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".