Comparative assessment of the quadriceps and the diaphragm in patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other chronic diseases such as heart failure are accompanied by skeletal muscle alterations that further enhance morbidity and mortality in affected individuals. Several studies have highlighted important structural and biochemical modifications in limb and respiratory muscles in COPD. Reviewing the similarities and differences between the two most studied muscles in COPD, the quadriceps and the diaphragm, may be helpful in providing important clues about the mechanisms underlying muscle changes associated with this disease. Although oxidative stress is present in both muscles, other muscle alterations are clearly distinct between the quadriceps and the diaphragm. For example, the oxidative metabolism varies in opposite directions, the diaphragm exhibiting increased resistance to fatigue while the quadriceps in COPD is characterized by premature fatigability. Differences in muscle phenotypic expression between the diaphragm and the quadriceps indicate that, in addition to systemic factors, the local microenvironment must participate in the reorganization seen in these two skeletal muscles in 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".