Associations between isokinetic muscle strength, high-level functional performance, and physiological parameters in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-level activities are typically not performed by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which results in reduced functional performance; however, the physiological parameters that contribute to this reduced performance are unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the relationships between high-level functional performance, leg muscle strength/power, aerobic power, and anaerobic power. Thirteen patients with COPD underwent an incremental maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test, quadriceps isokinetic dynamometry (isometric peak torque and rate of torque development; concentric isokinetic peak torque at 90°/sec, 180°/sec, and 270°/sec; and eccentric peak torque at 90°/sec), a steep ramp anaerobic test (SRAT) (increments of 25 watts every 10 seconds), and three functional measures (timed up and go [TUG], timed stair climb power [SCPT], and 30-second sit-to-stand test [STS]). TUG time correlated strongly (P < 0.05) with all muscle strength variables and with the SRAT. Isometric peak torque was the strongest determinant of TUG time (r = -0.92). SCPT and STS each correlated with all muscle strength variables except concentric at 270°/sec and with the SRAT. The SRAT was the strongest determinant of SCPT (r = 0.91), and eccentric peak torque at 90°/sec was most significantly associated with STS (r = 0.81). Performance on the SRAT (anaerobic power); slower-velocity concentric, eccentric, and isometric contractions; and rate of torque development are reflected in all functional tests, whereas cardiopulmonary exercise test performance (aerobic power) was not associated with any of the functional or muscle tests. High-level functional performance in patients with COPD is associated with physiological parameters that require high levels of muscle force and anaerobic work rates.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".