Respiratory muscles training in COPD patients
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that respiratory muscles undergo adaptation in response to overload stimuli during exercise training in stable COPD patients, thus resulting in significant increase of respiratory muscle function as well as the individual's improvements. The present article reviews the most updated evidence with regard to the use of respiratory muscle training (RMT) methods in COPD patients. Basically, three types of RMT (resistive training, pressure threshold loading, and normocapnic hyperpnea) have been reported. Frequency, duration, and intensity of exercise must be carefully considered for a training effect. In contrast with the plentitude of existing data inherent to inspiratory muscle training (IMT), literature is still lacking in showing clinical and physiological studies related to expiratory muscle training (EMT). In particular, while it seems that IMT is slightly superior to EMT in providing additional benefits other than respiratory muscle function such as a reduction in dyspnea, both the effects and the safety of EMT is still to be definitively elucidated in patients with COPD.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it