Use of Facemask and Mouthpiece to Assess Constant-Workrate Exercise Capacity in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the response to constant-workrate cycling exercise between the mouthpiece and the facemask in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Ten patients with COPD (FEV1: 48 +/- 14% pred, mean +/- SD) performed two symptom-limited constant-workrate cycling exercise tests at 80% of their predetermined peak exercise capacity. One test was performed using a mouthpiece and the other with a facemask, in a random order. The endurance time to constant-workrate exercise was compared between the two interfaces. VO2, VCO2, ventilation (VE), inspiratory capacity, dyspnea Borg score, and heart rate responses during exercise were also compared. RESULTS: Endurance time was similar between the two interfaces (mean difference +/- SD, 30 +/- 74 s, P = 0.23). Except for the end-exercise values, which were lower with the facemask, the VO2, VCO2, and VE responses to submaximal exercise were similar between the two interfaces. Perception of dyspnea, inspiratory capacity, and heart rate kinetics were similar during the two exercise tests. No clear preference about either interface was expressed by the patients. CONCLUSION: The mouthpiece and the facemask can be used with comparable results to determine the endurance time to constant-workrate cycling exercise in patients with COPD. Compared with the mouthpiece, the end-exercise values for VO2, VCO2, and VE were underestimated when a facemask was used. The similar responses in heart rate and symptom perception suggest that this could be due to an air leak at end-exercise with the facemask.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".