Lung function in post-poliomyelitis syndrome: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare lung function between patients with post-poliomyelitis syndrome and those with sequelae of paralytic poliomyelitis (without any signs or symptoms of post-poliomyelitis syndrome), as well as between patients with post-poliomyelitis syndrome and healthy controls. METHODS: Twenty-nine male participants were assigned to one of three groups: control; poliomyelitis (comprising patients who had had paralytic poliomyelitis but had not developed post-poliomyelitis syndrome); and post-poliomyelitis syndrome. Volunteers underwent lung function measurements (spirometry and respiratory muscle strength assessment). RESULTS: The results of the spirometric assessment revealed no significant differences among the groups except for an approximately 27% lower mean maximal voluntary ventilation in the post-poliomyelitis syndrome group when compared with the control group (p = 0.0127). Nevertheless, the maximal voluntary ventilation values for the post-poliomyelitis group were compared with those for the Brazilian population and were found to be normal. No significant differences were observed in respiratory muscle strength among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of lower maximal voluntary ventilation, there was no significant lung function impairment in outpatients diagnosed with post-poliomyelitis syndrome when compared with healthy subjects and with patients with sequelae of poliomyelitis without post-poliomyelitis syndrome. This is an important clinical finding because it shows that patients with post-poliomyelitis syndrome can have preserved lung function.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".