Pulmonary Rehabilitation After Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Patients Who Previously Completed a Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) impair health-related quality of life (HRQL). We evaluated the effect of an abbreviated repeat pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) program on HRQL after an AECOPD. METHODS: Patients who had completed PR were followed for up to 12 months to identify an AECOPD and then placed in randomized groups to receive a 3-week repeat-PR intervention or usual care. Measures of HRQL (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, CRQ) and functional exercise capacity (6-minute walk distance, 6MWD) were collected at 2 (T(1)), 5 (T(2)), and 12 weeks (T(3)) post-AECOPD. The repeat-PR program was undertaken between T(1) and T(2). Between-group differences were examined using repeated- measures analysis of variance or covariance. RESULTS: Of the 60 patients (30 men, age 69+/-8 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 second 0.86+/-0.40 L, 6MWD 367+/-99 m) followed, 41 experienced an AECOPD 14 +/- 11 weeks after completion of the initial PR program and 33 completed the study. Of these, 16 and 17 were randomized to the intervention and control groups, respectively. No between-group differences were demonstrated at T(2) or T(3). With the exclusion of 5 subjects who experienced a second AECOPD between T(1) and T(3), the participants in the intervention group demonstrated greater reduction in dyspnea when compared to those in the control group at T(3) (0.8+/-1.6 vs -0.4+/-1.3 points per item, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in dyspnea in those who did not experience a second AECOPD provides preliminary evidence for the role of repeat programs. The application of repeat PR should be refined in larger trials.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".