Effect of salmeterol on the ventilatory response to exercise in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of bronchodilator-induced reductions in lung hyperinflation on breathing pattern, ventilation and dyspnoea during exercise in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Quantitative tidal flow/volume loop analysis was used to evaluate abnormalities in dynamic ventilatory mechanics and their manipulation by a bronchodilator. In a randomised double-blind crossover study, 23 patients with COPD (mean +/- SEM forced expiratory volume in one second 42 +/- 3% of the predicted value) inhaled salmeterol 50 microg or placebo twice daily for 2 weeks each. After each treatment period, 2 h after dose, patients performed pulmonary function tests and symptom-limited cycle exercise at 75% of their maximal work-rate. After salmeterol versus placebo at rest, volume-corrected maximal expiratory flow rates increased by 175 +/- 52%, inspiratory capacity (IC) increased by 11 +/- 2% pred and functional residual capacity decreased by 11 +/- 3% pred. At a standardised time during exercise, salmeterol increased IC, tidal volume (VT), mean inspiratory and expiratory flows, ventilation, oxygen uptake (VO2) and carbon dioxide output. Salmeterol increased peak exercise endurance, VO2 and ventilation by 58 +/- 19, 8 +/- 3 and 12 +/- 3%, respectively. Improvements in peak VO2 correlated best with increases in peak VT; increases in peak VT and resting IC were interrelated. The reduction in dyspnoea ratings at a standardised time correlated with the increased VT. Mechanical factors play an important role in shaping the ventilatory response to exercise in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Bronchodilator-induced lung deflation reduced mechanical restriction, increased ventilatory capacity and decreased respiratory discomfort, thereby increasing 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".