Lung hyperinflation in COPD: applying physiology to clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), worsening expiratory flow limitation together with alteration in the elastic properties of the lung are associated with progressive lung hyperinflation and gradual decline in the resting inspiratory capacity over time. Dynamic hyperinflation (DH) refers to the variable increase in end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) above the relaxation volume (V R ) of the respiratory system that occurs when expiratory flow limitation is amplified (e.g., during bronchoconstriction and acute exacerbations) or when ventilation is increased in the setting of expiratory flow limitation. During exercise, the combined factors of worsening expiratory flow limitation, increasing respiratory neural drive and breathing pattern alterations dictate the pattern and extent of DH. Acute-on-chronic hyperinflation increases the intrinsic loads on the inspiratory muscles which become functionally weakened. The combined effects of compromised respiratory and integrated cardio-circulatory function due to lung hyperinflation contribute to exercise limitation. In COPD, the resting inspiratory capacity, which indirectly reflects the extent of lung hyperinflation, dictates the limits of tidal volume expansion and thus, peak ventilatory capacity during activity. Moreover, the growing disparity between increased respiratory neural drive and the blunted respiratory muscular/mechanical response due to lung hyperinflation is mechanistically linked to dyspnea during exercise in COPD. From a clinical standpoint, measurement of lung hyperinflation is integral to the assessment of physiological impairment in individuals with COPD and can effectively be targeted for treatment. Moreover, it is now well established that lung volume reduction (deflation) provides a solid mechanistic rationale for observed improvements in dyspnea and exercise tolerance in patients with COPD following bronchodilator therapy.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".