MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123624814 · doi:10.1183/09031936.04.00074703

Dyspnoea at rest and at the end of different exercises in patients with near-fatal asthma

2004· article· en· W2123624814 on OpenAlexaff
Esther Barreiro, Joaquim Gea, Carles Sanjuás, Ricard Marcos, J.M. Broquetas, J. Milic‐Emili

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaRest (music)Exercise-induced asthmaCardiologyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blunted perception of dyspnoea under resistive loading has been observed in patients with a history of near-fatal asthma (NFA). The perception of dyspnoea at rest and at the end point of various exercises was assessed in such patients. Respiratory function and exercise capacity (6-min walking distance, incremental cycloergometry and inspiratory threshold loading) were assessed in seven NFA and eight non-NFA patients. Dyspnoea (Borg scale) was measured at rest and at the end point of the various exercises. Dyspnoea at rest was significantly lower in NFA patients. Although exercise tolerance was similarly reduced in both the NFA and non-NFA groups, dyspnoea at peak cycle exercise was significantly lower in the former (2.6+/-2 versus 6.1+/-3.8 (Borg scale; mean+/-SD)), who mainly (86%) stopped because of leg discomfort. A similar trend was observed in the 6-min walking distance and inspiratory threshold loading tests. Dyspnoea at peak exercise was the best indicator of the NFA condition, with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 63% for a Borg scale score of < or = 6. Perception of dyspnoea is blunted in near-fatal asthma patients at both rest and the end point of various forms of exercise. Dyspnoea at peak exercise is the best indicator of the near-fatal asthma condition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207