Walking versus Cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: There is no consensus regarding which exercise test to use to evaluate the functional impact of bronchodilators in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: Bronchodilator-induced changes in endurance time were evaluated during cycling and walking in 17 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who completed two cycle endurance tests and two endurance shuttle walks at 80% of peak capacity. Each endurance test was preceded by the nebulization of a placebo or 500 microg of ipratropium bromide using a randomized, double-blind, crossover design. Quadriceps twitch force was measured with magnetic stimulation of the femoral nerve before and after each endurance test. RESULTS: Cycling endurance time did not improve significantly after bronchodilation despite a significant increase in FEV1 (delta endurance time ipratropium bromide - placebo: 51 +/- 255 s, p = 0.42). A similar change in FEV1 was associated with a significant improvement in walking endurance time (delta endurance time ipratropium bromide - placebo: 164 +/- 177 s, p < 0.01). A 22 +/- 17% fall in quadriceps twitch force was observed after cycling, whereas no significant change was seen after walking. CONCLUSION: The endurance shuttle walk is a sensitive test to detect changes in exercise tolerance after bronchodilation. Differences in the occurrence of quadriceps muscle fatigue may explain, in part, the different responsiveness to change between cycling and walking.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".