Is quadriceps muscle endurance reduced in COPD? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although quadriceps Type 1 muscle fibre proportion is reduced in patients with COPD, there is conflicting evidence as to whether quadriceps muscle endurance is impaired. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing quadriceps endurance in COPD to healthy controls. Methods Studies comparing quadriceps endurance between patients with COPD and healthy controls were identified using six databases (1946-2011) and grey literature. Full text articles were obtained after two researchers independently reviewed the abstracts. Weight standardised mean difference (WSMD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated by a random effects model for measures of quadriceps endurance. Results Data were extracted from 17 studies involving 565 patients with COPD and 353 healthy controls. The outcome measurements involved a mixture of techniques. Quadriceps endurance was greater in the controls compared with COPD (WSMD -1.46 [-0.84 to -2.09]) p Conclusions Quadriceps endurance is reduced in patients with COPD compared to healthy controls. The results were independent of the type of muscle endurance test used.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".