Does exercise test modality influence dyspnoea perception in obese patients with COPD?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether differences in physiological responses to weight-bearing (walking) and weight-supported (cycle) exercise influence dyspnoea perception in obese chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, where such discrepancies are probably exaggerated. We compared metabolic, ventilatory and perceptual responses during incremental treadmill and cycle exercise using a matched linearised rise in work rate in 18 (10 males and eight females) obese (mean ± sd body mass index 36.4 ± 5.0 kg·m(-2)) patients with COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 s 60 ± 11% predicted). Compared with cycle testing, treadmill testing was associated with a significantly higher oxygen uptake, lower ventilatory equivalent for oxygen and greater oxyhaemoglobin desaturation at a given work rate (p<0.01). Cycle testing was associated with a higher respiratory exchange ratio (p<0.01), earlier ventilatory threshold (p<0.01) and greater peak leg discomfort ratings (p=0.01). Ventilation, breathing pattern and operating lung volumes were similar between tests, as were dyspnoea/work rate and dyspnoea/ventilation relationships. Despite significant between-test differences in physiological responses, ventilation, operating lung volumes and dyspnoea intensity were similar at any given external power output during incremental walking and cycling exercise in obese COPD patients. These data provide evidence that either exercise modality can be selected for reliable evaluation of exertional dyspnoea in this population in research and clinical settings.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".