The effects of lung volume recruitment on coughing and pulmonary function in patients with ALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to study the intensity and duration of the effects of lung volume recruitment, a manual breath stacking technique, on pulmonary function and coughing in individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Twenty-nine individuals with ALS participated in this study. A cross-over research design was used to compare effects of lung volume recruitment to a control condition. Treatment outcome measures included forced vital capacity (FVC), sniff nasal pressure (SnP) and peak cough flow (PCF). Results demonstrated that LVR had a significantly positive effect on FVC for up to 15 min following treatment but did not have a facilitative effect on SnP at any time-point. LVR had a significantly positive effect on PCF during unassisted coughing at both 15 min and 30 min following treatment, and there was no significant decrease in flow rates from baseline to 30 min later. In conclusion, lung volume recruitment may be an effective treatment for improving coughing and pulmonary function in individuals with ALS. Future research should be focused on determining patient characteristics that contribute to response to treatment, as well as randomized controlled trials of the technique.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".