Does a <scp>N</scp>intendo <scp>W</scp>ii exercise program provide similar exercise demands as a traditional pulmonary rehabilitation program in adults with <scp>COPD</scp>?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population can experience lower activity and fitness levels than the non-COPD population. The Nintendo Wii may be an appropriate at-home training device for the COPD population, which could be used as a supplement for a pulmonary rehabilitation program. This study was a randomized, within-subject, cross-over study involving 10 adults with COPD previously enrolled in St Paul's Hospital's pulmonary rehabilitation program. This study attempted to determine if specific Wii activities resulted in similar energy expenditures to that of a more traditional pulmonary rehabilitation activity. METHODS: Participants completed two 15-min exercise interventions in a single session, with a washout period of 30 min in-between. The interventions were an experimental Wii intervention and a traditional treadmill intervention. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in total energy expenditure between the two 15-min exercise interventions [mean difference 36.3 joules; 95% confidence interval (CI): 31.4, 104]. There was no significant difference in heart rate (mean difference -0.167 beats per minute; 95% CI: -4.83, 4.50), rating of perceived exertion (mean difference 0.100; 95% CI: -0.416, 0.616) and Borg dyspnea scale (mean difference 0.267; 95% CI: -0.004, 0.537) between the two 15-min exercise interventions. There was a significant difference in SpO2 between the two 15-min exercise interventions (Wii intervention mean difference 2.33% > treadmill intervention; 95% CI: 1.52, 3.15). CONCLUSION: Gaming technology can provide an exercise program that has similar cardiovascular demands to traditional pulmonary rehabilitation programs for patients with COPD. Further research is necessary to address feasibility and long-term adherence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".