The association among balance, activity limitation, dyspnea and vulnerability in chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests that individuals with COPD have important deficits in balance control. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between balance, activity limitation, dyspnea and vulnerability in COPD. 59 clinically stable patients (mean age:65,19±10,62, FEV1: 44.8±10.2 %pred) participated in our study. Balance were determined using Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) and balance confidence using the Activity-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. Activity performance was evaluated with Canadian Occupational Performance Mesure (COPM). Daily living activities was assesed by London Chest Activities of Daily Living (LCADL) scale. Medical Research Council Dyspnea (MRCD) scale was used to determine dyspnea. Vulnerability were determined using Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13). There were significantly negative correlation between ABC scores and LCADL leisure time activities subgroup (p:0,029, r:-0,284) and between ABC with VES-13 self related health subgroup (p:0,004, r:-0,366). There were positive correlation between TUG and LCADL household activities (p:0,012, r:0,326), and between TUG and LCADL leisure time activities (p:0,034, r:0,277). There was no correlation between balance and dyspnea symptoms of the subjects. The correlation between COPM performance and VES-13 self related health subgroup (p:0,011, r:-0,330) were significant. Consequently the study showed that balance deficits effects activities of daily living and vulnerability significantly. Activity performance negatively influence health deteriotion in patients with COPD. This study also indicated that balance assesment and training should be added to the COPD rehabilitation programmes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".