Tidal expiratory flow limitation, dyspnoea and exercise capacity in patients with bilateral bronchiectasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study the authors investigated whether expiratory flow limitation (FL) is present during tidal breathing in patients with bilateral bronchiectasis (BB) and whether it is related to the severity of chronic dyspnoea (Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale), exercise capacity (maximal mechanical power output (WRmax)) and severity of the disease, as assessed by high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scoring. Lung function, MRC dyspnoea, HRCT score, WRmax and FL were assessed in 23 stable caucasian patients (six males) aged 56 +/- 17 yrs. FL was assessed at rest both in seated and supine positions. To detect FL, the negative expiratory pressure (NEP) technique was used. The degree of FL was rated using a five-point FL score. WRmax was measured using a cyclo-ergometer. According to the NEP technique, five patients were FL during resting breathing when supine but not seated, four were FL both seated and supine, and 14 were NFL both seated and supine. Furthermore, it was shown that: 1) in stable BB patients FL during resting breathing is common, especially in the supine position; 2) the degree of MRC dyspnoea is closely related to the five-point FL score; 3) WRmax (% pred) is more closely correlated with the MRC dyspnoea score than with the five-point FL score; and 4) HRCT score is closely related to forced expiratory volume in one second % pred but not five-point FL score. In conclusion, flow limitation is common at rest in sitting and supine positions in patients with bilateral bronchiectasis. Flow limitation and reduced exercise capacity are both associated with more severe dyspnoea. Finally, high-resolution computed tomography scoring correlates best with forced expiratory volume in one second.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".