Evolution of Dyspnea during Exercise in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Impact of Critical Volume Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) primarily describe their exertional dyspnea using descriptors alluding to increased effort or work of breathing and unsatisfied inspiration or inspiratory difficulty. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of changes in dynamic respiratory mechanics during incremental (INCR) and high-intensity constant work-rate (CWR) cycle exercise on the evolution of dyspnea intensity and its major qualitative dimensions in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: Sixteen subjects with COPD performed symptom-limited INCR and CWR cycle exercise tests. Measurements included dyspnea intensity and qualitative descriptors, breathing pattern, operating lung volumes, and esophageal pressure (Pes). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During both exercise tests, there was an inflection in the relation between tidal volume (Vt) and ventilation. This inflection occurred significantly earlier in time during CWR versus INCR exercise but at a similar ventilation, Vt, and tidal Pes swing. Beyond this inflection, there was no further change in Vt despite a continued increase in ventilation and tidal Pes. During both tests, "work and effort" was the dominant dyspnea descriptor selected up to the inflection point, whereas after this point dyspnea intensity and the selection frequency of "unsatisfied inspiration" rose sharply. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the exercise test protocol, the inflection (or plateau) in the Vt response marked the point where dyspnea intensity rose abruptly and there was a transition in the dominant qualitative descriptor choice from "work and effort" to "unsatisfied inspiration." Intensity and quality of dyspnea evolve separately and are strongly influenced by mechanical constraints on Vt expansion during exercise 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".