Relationship and Responsiveness of Three Upper-Limb Tests in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine (1) the relationship among three common upper-limb tests for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): unsupported upper limb exercise test (UULEX), 6-minute pegboard and ring test (6PBRT), and a muscle-strength test using a hand-held dynamometer; and (2) the responsiveness of these three tests to changes after pulmonary rehabilitation that included a resistance arm-training programme. METHODS: The study was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The UULEX and the 6PBRT were used to measure peak arm exercise capacity and arm function, respectively. A handheld dynamometer was used to measure elbow and shoulder flexion force. We analyzed baseline data for all participants in the RCT, as well as baseline and post-PR data for those who completed 6-week follow-up testing. RESULTS: 36 patients with COPD (mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]=35% [SD 15%] predicted; age 66 [9] y) participated, of whom 13 completed an arm-training programme. The correlations among the test results ranged from 0.41 to 0.81 (p<0.0001). Standardized response means were 1.0 for muscle force of elbow flexion, 1.2 for shoulder flexion, and 1.8 for the 6PBRT and UULEX. CONCLUSIONS: Although the three tests (UULEX, 6PBRT, and muscle-strength test using a hand-held dynamometer) are intended to measure different constructs, they were moderately to highly correlated with one another. The 6PBRT, UULEX, and muscle-strength test were demonstrated to be responsive to the resistance arm-training programme.
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".