Factors Discriminating Spontaneous Pursed-Lips Breathing Use in Patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pursed-lips breathing (PLB) is often spontaneously performed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate spontaneous PLB prevalence and to identify factors discriminating its use. Fifty-seven patients with COPD (FEV(1) = 44.3 +/- 17.4%pred) underwent pulmonary function testing and two incremental bicycle exercise tests. Peak workload (Wpeak), oxygen uptake (VO(2)peak), breathing pattern, and dyspnea (Borg scale) were measured in the first exercise test and spontaneous PLB performance in the second. Six patients spontaneously performed pursed-lips breathing during rest (PLBrest), exercise and recovery, 18 during exercise and recovery (PLBex), 7 during recovery only (PLBrec), 20 not at all (PLBno), and 6 performed other expiratory resistive maneuvers. PLBrest and PLBex patients exhibited a lower Wpeak, O(2) uptake, and minute ventilation (V(E)), greater expiratory flow limitation and higher slopes relating dyspnea to V(E) or W (%predicted). PLBrest patients were more hypercapnic, had a lower exercise tolerance and diffusion capacity, and greater flow limitation and hyperinflation. PLBrec and PLBno patients were indistinguishable with regard to pulmonary function, dyspnea, and exercise performance. The most significant independent predictors of spontaneous PLB use during exercise were FEV(1)/FVC and the slope relating dyspnea to V(E). Spontaneous PLB is most often performed by COPD subjects when ventilation is stimulated by exercise, and during recovery from exercise. Severity of airflow obstruction and the dyspnea experienced during exercise play an important role in determining whether or not PLB is spontaneously performed by COPD patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".