Interval versus continuous high-intensity exercise in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend high-intensity continuous exercise to reduce peripheral muscle dysfunction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease but acknowledge that interval exercise might be an equally effective alternative that is better tolerated by patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether interval exercise is no less effective than high-intensity continuous exercise and whether it is tolerated better by patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. DESIGN: Randomized, noninferiority trial. SETTING: Publicly funded rehabilitation hospital in Switzerland. PATIENTS: 98 patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with or without recent exacerbations. INTERVENTION: 12 to 15 supervised interval or high-intensity continuous exercise sessions (over 3 weeks) followed by exercise at home. MEASUREMENTS: Health-related quality of life determined by using the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) (scores from 1 [most severe impairment] to 7 [no impairment]) after 5 weeks and number of unintended breaks during supervised exercise. RESULTS: Both groups experienced large improvements in health-related quality of life (increase of CRQ total scores of 1.00 [SD, 0.98] for the interval exercise group and 1.02 [SD, 1.05] for the continuous exercise group). Adjusted between-group differences between the interval exercise group and the continuous exercise group (-0.05 [95% CI, -0.42 to -0.32] for CRQ and 1.1 meters [CI, -25.4 to 27.6 meters] for 6-minute walking distance) were within the a priori defined boundaries of noninferiority (0.5 for CRQ and 45 meters for 6-minute walking distance). Twenty-one (47.9%) patients using interval exercise and 11 (24.0%) patients using continuous exercise were able to adhere to the protocol (difference, 23.9 percentage points [CI, 5.0 to 42.8 percentage points]; P = 0.014). The median number of unintended breaks lasting 1 minute or more was 2 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) for patients in the interval exercise group and 11 (interquartile range, 2 to 26) for patients in the continuous exercise group (P = 0.023). LIMITATIONS: The study focused on initiation of exercise and not on outpatient or home-based maintenance of exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients can choose either of the 2 exercise plans to initiate physical exercise. International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial number: SRCTN11611768.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".