Role of inspiratory capacity on exercise tolerance in COPD patients with and without tidal expiratory flow limitation at rest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expiratory flow limitation promotes dynamic hyperinflation during exercise in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with a consequent reduction in inspiratory capacity (IC), limiting their exercise tolerance. Therefore, the exercise capacity of patients with tidal expiratory flow limitation (FL) at rest should depend on the magnitude of IC. The presented study was designed to evaluate the role of FL on the relationship between resting IC, other respiratory function variables and exercise performance in COPD patients. Fifty-two patients were included in the study. Negative expiratory pressure (NEP) uptake (VO2,max) were measured during an incremental symptom-limited cycle exercise. Twenty-nine patients were FL at rest. The IC was normal in all non-FL patients, while in most FL subjects it was decreased. Both WRmax and VO2,max were lower in FL patients (p<0.001, each). A close relationship of WRmax and O2,max to IC was found (r=0.73 and 0.75, respectively; p<0.0001, each). In the whole group, stepwise regression analysis selected IC and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) (% predicted) as the only significant contributors to exercise tolerance. Subgroup analysis showed that IC was the sole predictor in FL patients, and FEV1/FVC in non-FL patients. Detection of flow limitation provides useful information on the factors that influence exercise capacity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Accordingly, in patients with flow limitation, inspiratory capacity appears as the best predictor of exercise tolerance, reflecting the presence of dynamic hyperinflation.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".