Gender-Associated Differences in Pulmonary Rehabilitation Outcomes in People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief PURPOSE: Although there is substantial evidence to support the importance of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, there is less evidence for gender-associated differences in the response to PR. The purpose of this review was to systematically identify and synthesize the available literature on whether men and women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease respond differently to PR. METHODS: A search of 4 electronic databases was conducted (January 1990 to May 2012) for all English language articles where the goal was to assess gender differences in outcomes after PR. RESULTS: Of the 116 articles retrieved, 11 were included. Five studies reported differences between men and women after PR, for the outcomes of dyspnea, health-related quality of life, physical capacity, psychological and functional status, and coping strategies. Six studies reported no difference in response to PR for the same outcomes. No differences in study designs, study quality, participant characteristics, and type and duration of PR programs were observed between studies that showed gender differences and those that did not. CONCLUSION: There was insufficient evidence to support or refute gender-associated differences in PR outcomes. The impact of gender on the outcome of PR and how these differences may affect the delivery of PR programs remains to be defined. The number and the characteristics of studies reporting gender-associated differences in response to PR in people with COPD were similar to those not showing differences for the same health outcomes assessed. The impact of gender on the outcome of PR remains to be defined.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".