MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation of the Lower Limbs in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2008· review· en· W1981194842 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital Saint-François d'AssiseCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPulmonary diseasePhysical therapyModalitiesIntensive care medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationTreatment modalityFunctional electrical stimulationNeuromuscular diseaseDiseaseElectric stimulation therapyTherapeutic modalitiesStimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Exercise training comprises a variety of modalities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In the last 10 years, neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has attracted the interests of clinicians as a novel rehabilitative approach. Because of a limited impact on ventilatory requirements and dyspnea, NMES appears as a promising alternative to general physical reconditioning in patients with advanced COPD. In this review, the technical aspects of electrostimulation, its clinical benefits in COPD, and the potential mechanisms of action have been discussed. This article reviews the technical aspects of electrostimulation, its clinical benefits in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and the potential mecha-nisms of action.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it