Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) with Standard Exhalation Valve Does Not Improve Maximum Exercise Capacity in Patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although BiPAP has been used as an adjunct to exercise, little is know about its effect on exercise in COPD. We aimed to evaluate the acute effect of BiPAP delivered with a standard valve (Vision, Respironics), compared to no assist, on exercise capacity in individuals with COPD. METHODS: Peak exercise workload (WLpeak), dyspnea (Borg), end-expiratory lung volume (EELV), tidal volume (VT), minute ventilation (VE), O2 uptake (VO2), and CO2 production (VCO2) were assessed in 10 COPD patients (FEV1 53 ± 22% pred) during three symptom-limited bicycle exercise tests while breathing i) without a ventilator (noPS), ii) with a pressure support (PS) of 0 cm H2O (PS0; IPAP & EPAP 4 cm H2O) and iii) PS of 10 cm H2O (PS10; IPAP 14 & EPAP 4 cm H2O) on separate days using a randomized crossover design. RESULTS: WLpeak was significantly lower with PS10 (33 ± 16) and PS0 (30.5 ± 13) than noPS (43 ± 19) (p < 0.001). Dyspnea at peak exercise was similar with noPS, PS0 and PS10; at isoload it was lower with noPS compared to PS10 and PS0 (p < 0.01). VT and VE were highest with PS10 and lowest with noPS both at peak exercise and isoload (p < 0.001). EELV was similar at peak exercise with all three conditions. VO2 and VCO2 were greater with PS10 and PS0 than noPS (p < 0.001), both at peak exercise and isoload. CONCLUSION: Use of BiPAP with a standard exhalation valve during exercise increases VT and VE at the expense of augmenting VCO2 and dyspnea, which in turns reduces WLpeak in COPD patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".