Eccentric Cycle Exercise in Severe COPD: Feasibility of Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eccentric cycling may present an interesting alternative to traditional exercise rehabilitation for patients with advanced COPD, because of the low ventilatory cost associated with lengthening muscle actions. However, due to muscle damage and soreness typically associated with eccentric exercise, there has been reluctance in using this modality in clinical populations. This study assessed the feasibility of applying an eccentric cycling protocol, based on progressive muscle overload, in six severe COPD patients with the aim of minimizing side effects and maximizing compliance. Over 5 weeks, eccentric cycling power was progressively increased in all patients from a minimal 10-Watt workload to a target intensity of 60% peak oxygen consumption (attained in a concentric modality). By 5 weeks, patients were able to cycle on average at a 7-fold higher power output relative to baseline, with heart rate being maintained at ∼85% of peak. All patients complied with the protocol and presented tolerable dyspnea and leg fatigue throughout the study; muscle soreness was minimal and did not compromise increases in power; creatine kinase remained within normal range or was slightly elevated; and most patients showed a breathing reserve > 15 L.min(-1). At the target intensity, ventilation and breathing frequency during eccentric cycling were similar to concentric cycling while power was approximately five times higher (p = 0.02). This study showed that an eccentric cycling protocol based on progressive increases in workload is feasible in severe COPD, with no side effects and high compliance, thus warranting further study into its efficacy as a training intervention.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".