The Continuum of Physiological Impairment during Treadmill Walking in Patients with Mild-to-Moderate COPD: Patient Characterization Phase of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To have a better understanding of the mechanisms of exercise limitation in mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), we compared detailed respiratory physiology in patients with COPD and healthy age- and sex-matched controls. METHODS: Data were collected during the pre-treatment, patient characterization phase of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Patients with COPD met Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 1 or 2 spirometric criteria, were symptomatic, and had evidence of gas trapping during exercise. All participants completed pulmonary function and symptom-limited incremental treadmill exercise tests. RESULTS: Chronic activity-related dyspnea measured by Baseline Dyspnea Index was similarly increased in patients with GOLD 1 (n = 41) and 2 (n = 63) COPD compared with controls (n = 104). Plethysmographic lung volumes were increased and lung diffusing capacity was decreased in both GOLD groups. Peak oxygen uptake and work rate were reduced in both GOLD groups compared with controls (p<0.001). Submaximal ventilation, dyspnea, and leg discomfort ratings were higher for a given work rate in both GOLD groups compared with controls. Resting inspiratory capacity, peak ventilation, and tidal volume were reduced in patients with GOLD 2 COPD compared with patients with GOLD 1 COPD and controls (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lower exercise tolerance in patients with GOLD 1 and 2 COPD compared with controls was explained by greater mechanical abnormalities, greater ventilatory requirements, and increased subjective discomfort. Lower resting inspiratory capacity in patients with GOLD 2 COPD was associated with greater mechanical constraints and lower peak ventilation compared with patients with GOLD 1 COPD and controls. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01072396.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".