The influence of lung volume reduction surgery on exercise in patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the influence of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) on incremental- and constant-power exercise is important in the evaluation of this procedure for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), it is rarely reported even in large randomised controlled trials. This report describes 39 patients with severe COPD ((mean +/- SE) forced expiratory volume in one second 32 +/- 2% pred, functional residual capacity 195 +/- 6% pred) who participated in a randomised controlled trial of LVRS and who completed incremental exercise tests at 6 months as well as endurance tests (constant power of 25 +/- 1 W) at 3, 9 and 12 months. Peak oxygen uptake (V'O2,pk) was similar between the treatment (n = 19) and control groups (n = 20) at baseline. After LVRS, the treatment group had a significantly greater V'O2,pk (mean difference (95% CI) 1.28 (0.07-2.50) mL x kg x min(-1)) and power (13 (6-20) W). The treatment group achieved a significantly greater minute ventilation (7.1 (2.9-11.3) L x min(-1)) with a greater tidal volume (0.16 (0.04-0.28) L). Baseline endurance was similar between groups. After surgery, there were significant between-group differences in endurance time, which were maintained at 12 months (7.3 (3.9-10.8) min). Lung volume reduction surgery is associated with an increase in exercise capacity and endurance, as compared with conventional medical treatment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".