Lung hyperinflation in COPD: the impact of pharmacotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improvement in airway function in response to bronchodilator therapy is generally confirmed by simple spirometry. However, improvements in maximal expiratory flow rates have been shown to correlate poorly with important patient-centred outcomes, such as reduced exertional dyspnoea and improved exercise performance. Recent studies have suggested that attendant reductions in end-expiratory lung volume as a result of bronchodilator-induced improvements in lung emptying may be more closely associated with symptom relief and increased exercise capacity than traditional spirometric indices. To the extent that chronic lung hyperinflation and the superimposition of acute dynamic hyperinflation (in response to increased ventilation or expiratory flow limitation) result in excessive loading and weakening of the inspiratory muscles, then pharmacological lung volume reduction should have important mechanical and sensory benefits for the patient. The present article will examine the mechanisms of lung deflation following short-term bronchodilator therapy. The physiological links between reduced hyperinflation, improved dyspnoea and exercise endurance will be examined, and the emerging evidence for the additive effects of combining various modern pharmacological therapies will be reviewed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".