Inspiratory muscle training protocol for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (IMTCO study): a multicentre randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) has been applied during pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it remains unclear if the addition of IMT to a general exercise training programme leads to additional clinically relevant improvements in patients with COPD. In this study, we will investigate whether the addition of IMT to a general exercise training programme improves 6 min walking distance, health-related quality of life, daily physical activity and inspiratory muscle function in patients with COPD with inspiratory muscle weakness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients with COPD (n=170) with inspiratory muscle weakness (Pi,max <60 cm H2O or <50%pred) will be recruited to a multicentre randomised placebo controlled trial of IMT and allocated into one of the two groups. Patients in both groups will follow a 3 month general exercise training programme, in combination with home-based IMT. IMT will be performed with a recently developed device (POWERbreathe KH1). This device applies an inspiratory load that is provided by an electronically controlled valve (variable flow resistive load). The intervention group (n=85) will undertake an IMT programme at a high intensity (≥50% of their Pi,max), whereas the placebo group (n=85) will undertake IMT at a low training intensity (≤10% of Pi,max). Total daily IMT time for both groups will be 21 min (6 cycles of 30 breaths). Improvement in the 6 min walking distance will be the primary outcome. Inspiratory muscle function, health-related quality of life and daily physical activity will be assessed as secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from relevant centre committees and the study has been registered in a publicly accessible clinical trial database. The results will be easily interpretable and should immediately be communicated to healthcare providers, patients and the general public. RESULTS: This can be incorporated into evidence-based treatment recommendations for clinical practice. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01397396.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".