Influence of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) on health related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical value of LVRS has been questioned in the absence of trials comparing it with pulmonary rehabilitation, the prevailing standard of care in COPD. Patients with heterogeneous emphysema are more likely to benefit from volume reduction than those with homogeneous disease. Disease specific quality of life is a responsive interpretable outcome that enables health professionals to identify the magnitude of the effect of an intervention across several domains. METHODS: Non-smoking patients aged <75 years with severe COPD (FEV(1) <40% predicted, FEV(1)/FVC <0.7), hyperinflation, and evidence of heterogeneity were randomised to surgical or control groups after pulmonary rehabilitation and monitored at 3 month intervals for 12 months with no crossover between the groups. The primary outcome was disease specific quality of life as measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). Treatment failure was defined as death or functional decline (fall of 1 unit in any two domains of the CRQ). Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function and exercise capacity. RESULTS: LVRS resulted in significant between group differences in each domain of the CRQ at 12 months (change of 0.5 represents a small but important difference): dyspnoea 1.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 2.6; p<0.0001); emotional function 1.5 (95% CI 0.9 to 2.1; p<0.0001); fatigue 2.0 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.6; p<0.0001); mastery 1.8 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.5; p<0.0001). In the control group one of 27 patients died and 16 experienced functional decline over 12 months. In the surgical group four of 28 patients died and three experienced functional decline (hazard ratio = 3.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 7.6; p=0.01). Between group improvements (p<0.05) in lung volumes, flow rates, and exercise were sustained at 12 months (RV -47% predicted (95% CI -71 to -23; p=0.0002); FEV(1) 0.3 l (95% CI 0.1 to 0. 5; p=0.0003); submaximal exercise 7.3 min (95% CI 3.9 to 10.8; p<0.0001); 6 minute walk 66 metres (95% CI 32 to 101; p=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: In COPD patients with heterogeneous emphysema, LVRS resulted in important benefits in disease specific quality of life compared with medical management, which were sustained at 12 months after 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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".