Respiratory Muscle Performance and the Perception of Dyspnea in Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary and respiratory muscle function impairment are common in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). However, dyspnea is not a frequent complaint among these patients, although it is well documented that the intensity of dyspnea is related to the activity and the strength of the respiratory muscles. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength and endurance and the perception of dyspnea (POD) in 20 patients with PD (stage II and III Hoehn and Yahr scale) before and after their first daily L-dopa dose. Respiratory muscle strength was assessed by measuring the maximal inspiratory and expiratory mouth pressures (PImax and PEmax), at residual volume (RV) and total lung capacity (TLC) respectively. The POD was measured while the subject breathed against progressive load and dyspnea was rated using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Respiratory muscle strength and endurance were decreased and the POD was increased during the off medication period compared to normal subjects. There was a nonsignificant trend to an increase in Plmax, PEmax and endurance after L-dopa intake. The POD of PD patients decreased (p<0.05) following medication, although, it remained increased (p<0.01) as compared to the normal subjects. Even if patients had spirometry data showing a mild restrictive pattern, before medication, both forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume (FEV)1 remained almost identical after L-dopa intake. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PD have higher POD, compared to normal subjects and this increased perception is attenuated when the patients are on dopaminergic medication. The change in the POD is not related to changes in respiratory muscle performance or pulmonary functions. A central effect or a correction of uncoordinated respiratory movements by L-dopa may contribute to the decrease in POD following L-dopa treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".