MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P146 Validation of the COPD assessment test (CAT) in pulmonary rehabilitation: application to a cohort of mixed pulmonary diseases

2011· article· en· W2025974423 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Lachapelle, Marc Brosseau, Marilyn Houle-Péloquin, C. Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueThorax · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary rehabilitationCOPDCohortInternal medicineExacerbationWilcoxon signed-rank testRank correlationPhysical therapyPulmonary diseaseAsthmaProspective cohort studyRetrospective cohort studyMann–Whitney U test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The CAT is a new self administered questionnaire developed and validated for the assessment and monitoring of COPD patients.1 Recently, it has been showed to be sensitive to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in a prospective multicentric COPD study.2 The CAT has never been validated in a global PR programme with mixed pulmonary diseases. Methods We performed a retrospective study of 30 patients who completed the CAT before and after PR in 2010–2011. The cohort included seventeen patients diagnosed with COPD, seven with asthma and six with fibrosis. All participants were referred for an 8 weeks, three times weekly rehabilitation programme. Our primary objective was to validate the CAT in the cohort. We also evaluated six other outcome measures of PR as a secondary endpoint (Abstract P146 table 1). Pre and post PR variations were calculated with a nonparametric Wilcoxon test and Spearman rank correlation test was used to assess the relationship between measures. Results The CAT decreased significantly by a mean of 3.2 (p<0.01) following PR. The mean CAT score change was similar in all pulmonary disease groups and between obstructive and non obstructive diseases. The pre and post CAT score negative variation was 4.16 (p<0.05) for women, 3.74 (p<0.05) for patients younger than 70 years old and 4.41 (p<0.05) for patients with <1 exacerbation yearly. No correlation between the CAT score change and the FEV1 (r=−0.11) was found. Of all the outcome measures, the number of climb stairs was the most responsive with an amelioration of 250% after PR. Conclusion Even if the CAT was initially developed for the assessment of COPD patients, our study has shown that the questionnaire is responsive to a chronic lung disease9s population undergoing rehabilitation. A prospective study is now required to expand the application of the CAT to the general assessment of patients with chronic lung diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoraxSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207