Arm activity in daily life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale : To date, no study has objectively compared arm activity in daily life in individuals with COPD with healthy controls. Our objectives were to determine whether individuals with COPD have decreased arm activity during daily life compared to healthy controls and to investigate the relationships between arm activity during daily life and dyspnea during activities of daily living (ADL), arm exercise capacity and self-reported performance during ADL. Methods: Participants worn an actigraph on the dominant arm for 24 hours, 7 consecutive days. Corrections for walking time were made and mean activity scores (counts/epoch) per day were averaged over the 7 days and presented as daily arm activity.Dyspnea during ADL, arm exercise capacity and self-reported performance during ADL were measured using the dyspnea domain of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ dyspnea ), the Unsupported Upper Limb Exercise test (UULEX) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Results: Thirty individuals with COPD (FEV 1 % = 33 ± 18%; 70 ± 7 yrs) and 14 healthy controls (FEV 1 % = 104 ± 16%; 66 ± 9 yrs) exhibited similar daily arm activity (138 ± 31;COPD vs. 133 ± 21; controls) (p = 0.6). Arm exercise capacity was decreased in patients with COPD (513 ± 132 (COPD) vs. 751 ± 144 (controls)). Weak correlations were found between daily arm activity and CRQ dyspnea , arm exercise capacity and self-reported performance during ADL, ranging from -0.22 to 0.13 (p ≥ 0.2). Conclusions: Individuals with COPD have similar arm activity levels than health elderly controls despite decreased arm exercise capacity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".