P146 Validation of the COPD assessment test (CAT) in pulmonary rehabilitation: application to a cohort of mixed pulmonary diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Introduction</h3> 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. <h3>Methods</h3> 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. <h3>Results</h3> 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 FEV<sub>1</sub> (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. <h3>Conclusion</h3> 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".