Distinct Trajectories of Physical Activity Among Patients with COPD During and After Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about longitudinal trends in objectively measured physical activity (PA) during and after pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The purpose of this study was to examine the PA trajectories of patients with COPD during and after PR and whether demographic, clinical, or program characteristics differed across these trajectories. The study was approved by Research Ethics Boards at all participating institutions, and written informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to study inclusion. COPD patients (N = 190) completed a questionnaire and wore a pedometer for 7 days at baseline, end of PR, and 3 and 9 months after completing PR. Latent class growth analyses showed that two distinct PA trajectories emerged. Active Maintainers averaged 9177 steps/day at baseline, and maintained this level throughout the assessment and post rehabilitation period. In contrast, Inactive Maintainers averaged 3133 steps/day at baseline, which also remained stable during and after PR. Follow-up analyses showed the Inactive Maintainers were more likely to be retired from work and have lower baseline scores for their stress tests and 6-minute walk tests compared to Active Maintainers (all p < 0.05). These results suggest that two distinct steps/day trajectories exist for COPD patients during and after completing PR that are partially explained by specific demographic and clinical characteristics.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".