Endurance shuttle walking test: responsiveness to salmeterol in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have shown that the endurance shuttle walking test (ESWT) is responsive to treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This exercise test needs to be further investigated because of its relevance for activity of daily living. The aim of the present study was to evaluate, in patients with COPD, the responsiveness of the ESWT in detecting improvement in walking performance after a single dose of salmeterol. In a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial, 20 patients with COPD performed two ESWT at 80% of peak capacity 2.5 h after inhaling either a placebo or 50 microg of salmeterol. Cardiorespiratory parameters were monitored during each walking test. Inspiratory capacities and Borg ratings for dyspnoea were obtained every other minute throughout the tests. Compared with placebo, salmeterol produced a significant change in lung function and a significant improvement in walking performance (mean+/-sd difference in time: 117+/-20 s; difference in distance: 160+/-277 m). At isotime (the latest exercise time that was reached on both ESWT), a significant reduction in dyspnoea was observed after bronchodilation. Bronchodilation with salmeterol reduced dyspnoea during walking and improved walking capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These findings provide further support for the use of the endurance shuttle walking test as an evaluative tool in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".