Effectiveness of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Restrictive Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation is effective in improving exercise endurance and quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation in restrictive lung disease has not been extensively studied. METHODS: Forty-six patients with restrictive lung disease (35 interstitial lung diseases, 11 skeletal abnormalities) were admitted to a pulmonary rehabilitation program; 26 completed the 8-week program and 15 were followed to a 1-year reassessment. Fifteen noncompliant patients were excluded and 1 patient with interstitial lung disease died at 8 weeks. Pulmonary function tests, exercise endurance, quality of life (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale and dyspnea) were measured at baseline, 8 weeks, and 1 year. RESULTS: Exercise endurance (treadmill) improved at 8 weeks (mean improvement, 10.2 +/- 7.4 minutes) and at 1 year (mean improvement, 8.7 +/- 12.2 minutes). Shuttle test improved at 8 weeks (mean improvement, 27.2 +/- 75.9 m) but not at 1 year. Patients using long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) had a better improvement in the treadmill test (P < .01) at 8 weeks compared with those not using LTOT. Thirty-three percent of patients failed to complete the program. There was significant improvement in dyspnea and quality of life in Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale for depression at 8 weeks compared with baseline; there was a sustained significant reduction in hospital admission days noted at 1-year postrehabilitation (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary rehabilitation is effective in improving exercise endurance and the quality of life and in reducing hospital admissions in this small group of patients with significant restrictive lung disease. The relatively large dropout number suggests that a standard chronic obstructive pulmonary disease program may not be ideal for patients with restrictive lung disease.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".