Effects of tiotropium on lung hyperinflation, dyspnoea and exercise tolerance in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that use of tiotropium, a new long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator, would be associated with sustained reduction in lung hyperinflation and, thereby, would improve exertional dyspnoea and exercise performance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted in 187 patients (forced expiratory volume in one second 44 +/- 13% pred): 96 patients received 18 microg tiotropium and 91 patients received placebo once daily for 42 days. Spirometry, plethysmographic lung volumes, cycle exercise endurance and exertional dyspnoea intensity at 75% of each patient's maximal work capacity were compared. On day 42, the use of tiotropium was associated with the following effects at pre-dose and post-dose measurements as compared to placebo: vital capacity and inspiratory capacity (IC) increased, with inverse decreases in residual volume and functional residual capacity. Tiotropium increased post-dose exercise endurance time by 105 +/- 40 s (21%) as compared to placebo on day 42. At a standardised time near end-exercise (isotime), IC, tidal volume and minute ventilation all increased, whilst dyspnoea decreased by 0.9 +/- 0.3 Borg scale units. In conclusion, the use of tiotropium was associated with sustained reductions of lung hyperinflation at rest and during exercise. Resultant increases in inspiratory capacity permitted greater expansion of tidal volume and contributed to improvements in both exertional dyspnoea and exercise endurance.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".