Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pulmonary rehabilitation plays a key role in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although the American Thoracic Society recently provided a grade of 1A for evidence of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits related to pulmonary rehabilitation, knowledge about the psychological and behavioral processes explaining the impact of pulmonary rehabilitation on HRQoL in COPD patients remains limited. This review describes the state of knowledge over the past year concerning HRQoL benefits after pulmonary rehabilitation and suggests avenues for future research. RECENT FINDINGS: HRQoL outcomes related to pulmonary rehabilitation explores five themes: optimizing pulmonary rehabilitation components to improve HRQoL; characterization of a responder phenotype; suitability of pulmonary rehabilitation following acute exacerbations; exploration of psychological and behavioral mechanisms explaining pulmonary rehabilitation benefits; and long-term maintenance of HRQoL benefits after pulmonary rehabilitation. SUMMARY: Evidence supports the use of pulmonary rehabilitation to improve HRQoL in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. However, it is unclear how pulmonary rehabilitation improves HRQoL and which characteristics confer the greatest HRQoL benefits. Moreover, most studies failed to provide a compelling theoretical rationale for the intervention employed. Future research should focus on improving the understanding of the psychological mechanisms implicated in the adoption and maintenance of healthy behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".