Respiratory function and the obesity paradox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Obese individuals have impaired respiratory function relative to their normal-weight counterparts. Despite these negative effects, obesity is paradoxically associated with better survival in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this review is to describe this 'obesity paradox', to discuss the effects of obesity on respiratory function, and to speculate as to whether obesity-related alterations in respiratory mechanics can influence the natural history of COPD. RECENT FINDINGS: Given the known negative effects of obesity on respiratory physiology, it is reasonable to predict that obese COPD patients would be more likely to experience greater dyspnea and exercise intolerance relative to COPD patients of normal weight. However, recent evidence suggests that obese COPD patients have similar or better dyspnea scores during exercise and do not have diminished exercise capacity. These observations may be attributable to the fact that obese COPD patients have reduced operating lung volumes and higher inspiratory capacity to total lung capacity ratios than their lean COPD counterparts. SUMMARY: Obese patients with COPD do not appear to be at a disadvantage during exercise relative to lean COPD patients. Obesity may be associated with improved survival in COPD but specific mechanisms for this paradox remain to be elucidated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".