Deficits in Muscle Strength, Mass, Quality, and Mobility in People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Midthigh intramuscular fat (IF), a feature of reduced muscle quality, is an important predictor of self-reported mobility loss in the elderly. This study compared measures of muscle strength, mass, IF, and mobility in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and healthy subjects. Associations between measures of muscle strength, mass, IF, and mobility were explored. METHODS: Knee extensor muscle strength was assessed with an isokinetic dynamometer. Cross-sectional area and IF of the thigh muscles were measured with computerized tomography. Mobility was assessed with the repetitive sit-to-stand, self-selected gait speed, and 6-minute walk tests. RESULTS: Patients with COPD (n = 21, age 71.3 ± 8.1 years, and a percentage predicted force expiratory volume in 1 second of 47.2 ± 12.9) and 21 healthy subjects matched for age (67.4 ± 8.6 years), gender, and body mass participated in the study. Patients with COPD showed reduced average knee extensor strength (29%, P = .016) cross-sectional area of the thigh muscles (17%, P = .007) and mobility measures (~23%, P ≤ .001). Knee extensor and flexor IF was 2-folds greater in people with COPD (P ≤ .005). Measures of knee extensor muscle strength, mass, and IF were not associated with mobility measures. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with healthy controls, patients with moderate to severe COPD show marked deficits in muscle strength, mass, quality, and mobility. More studies with larger sample size are required to elucidate whether any of these muscle deficits can explain mobility impairments in COPD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".