MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029803318 · doi:10.1159/000050502

How and Why Exercise Is Impaired in COPD

2001· review· en· W2029803318 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiration · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPhysical therapyInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationCardiologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Published data indicate that exercise in COPD is more often limited by leg effort than breathlessness. This casts some doubt on the classical belief that inability to ventilate limits exercise performance. In fact, symptoms limiting exercise appear to be essentially the same in COPD and in health or congestive heart failure, where exercise is limited by inadequate energy supply to locomotor muscles. In COPD, impaired O<sub>2</sub> delivery to locomotor muscles is suggested by: (1) the O<sub>2</sub> cost (v̇<sub>O2</sub>) of breathing may be ∼50% of whole body v̇<sub>O2</sub>; (2) decreasing the work of breathing improves performance and v̇<sub>O2</sub> of locomotor muscles, and (3) locomotor muscle v̇<sub>O2</sub> is greater when it is the only muscle exercising than during whole body exercise. Excessive expiratory pressures when expiratory flow is limited may lead to decreased venous return and contribute importantly to exercise limitation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.290 · 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