Neuromuscular electrical stimulation appears to be useful in people with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUESTION: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), what effect does neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) have on muscle function and walking endurance? DESIGN: Randomised, controlled trial in which the patients and those who collected outcome measures were blinded to group allocation. SETTING: Home-based intervention with outcomes collected at a hospital in Quebec City, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were clinically stable, sedentary and able to travel to the hospital with: (a) a smoking history >20 pack-years, (b) severe airflow obstruction, and (c) a 6-minute walk distance <400m. Exclusion criteria comprised any co-morbid condition associated with muscle wasting. Randomisation of 22 patients allocated 13 to the intervention group and 9 to the control group. INTERVENTIONS: Both groups received electrical stimulation 5 times a week for 6 weeks. Each session comprised 35min of bilateral stimulation for the quadriceps and 25min of bilateral stimulation for the calf. Stimulation was applied with the patient in sitting. They were encouraged to increase the intensity to the maximum they could tolerate. Patients were visited weekly at home by a research nurse to monitor progress. Parameters used by the intervention group were 50Hz frequency, 400μs pulse duration, and 6sec/16sec duty cycle. Parameters used by the control/sham group were 5Hz frequency, 100μs pulse duration, applied continuously. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was quadriceps strength. The secondary outcomes included quadriceps endurance and performance during the endurance shuttle walk test. RESULTS: Data were available on 12 and 8 patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Current intensity increased over the training period in the intervention group from 20±4mA to 31±10mA (p <0.001). Compared with the control group, the intervention group conferred greater gains in quadriceps force (difference in mean percent change from baseline 14%, 95% CI 1% to 26%) and endurance (42%, 95% CI 4% to 80%), but not walking endurance. CONCLUSION: In patients with severe COPD, NMES delivered at home enhanced muscle function but not walking endurance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".