Reliability of ventilatory parameters during cycle ergometry in multicentre trials in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the distribution profiles and repeatability of key exercise performance parameters in the first large multicentre trials to include these measurements in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). After a screening visit, 463 subjects with COPD (mean+/-SD forced expiratory volume in 1 s 43+/-13% predicted) completed two run-in visits before treatment randomisation. At the run-in visits, measurements were conducted at rest, at a standardised time near end-exercise (isotime) and at peak exercise during constant work rate (CWR) cycle tests at 75% of each individual's maximum work capacity. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the test-retest repeatability of measurements of endurance time (ET), inspiratory capacity (IC), ventilation and dyspnoea intensity (Borg scale) during exercise. IC, ventilation and dyspnoea ratings were normally distributed; ET showed rightward skew (median<mean, skewness of 10.9 (much greater than zero)) with 16% of the sample exceeding 1 SD of the mean. ET was highly repeatable across run-in visits: 7.9+/-4.8 and 8.4+/-5.1 min (R = 0.84). IC values at rest, isotime and peak exercise were all highly repeatable (R > or = 0.87). Ventilation was repeatable over the same time-points (R > or = 0.92), as was dyspnoea intensity at isotime (R = 0.79) and at peak exercise (R = 0.81). In conclusion, key perceptual and ventilatory parameters can be reliably measured during CWR cycle exercise in multicentre clinical trials in moderate to very severe COPD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".