Feasibility of Lung Volume Recruitment in Early Neuromuscular Weakness: A Comparison Between Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Myotonic Dystrophy, and Postpolio Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung volume recruitment (LVR) is a cough assistance technique used in persons with neuromuscular disorders (NMDs), most typically in those requiring noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Whether it may be useful in persons with NMDs who have milder respiratory impairment is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, impact on quality of life (QOL), and preliminary physiological effects of daily LVR in different categories of persons with NMDs who have an early stage of respiratory impairment. DESIGN: Feasibility study. SETTING: Academic tertiary care center. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (n = 8), postpolio syndrome (n = 10), and myotonic dystrophy (n = 6) who had restrictive respiratory defects but were not yet using NIV. METHODS: Participants were asked to perform LVR up to 4 times daily and log their LVR use in a diary. Physiological measurements and questionnaires were completed at baseline and after 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Compliance with LVR use was assessed, along with QOL and willingness to continue the treatment. Physiological measurements included forced vital capacity (FVC), lung insufflation capacity (LIC), and the LIC minus FVC difference. RESULTS: Of the 24 recruited subjects, 7 with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, 7 with postpolio syndrome, and 5 with myotonic dystrophy completed the study (n = 19). At baseline, mean values for FVC and spontaneous peak cough flow were 59.9% predicted and 373.1 L/min, respectively. For subjects completing the study, 74% were willing to continue long-term LVR use, and QOL scores were not adversely affected by LVR in any NMD subgroup. The LIC-FVC difference increased from baseline to follow-up by a mean of 0.243 L (P = .006) in all subjects (n = 19), suggesting a possible improvement in respiratory system mechanics. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NMDs who have early restrictive respiratory defects but do not yet require NIV, regular use of LVR is feasible with no negative impact on QOL over a 3-month period and may have physiological benefits. Further work is needed to determine whether early institution of LVR can improve respiratory system mechanics and help delay ventilatory failure in persons with NMDs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".