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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".