Sensory-mechanical relationships during high-intensity, constant-work-rate exercise in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During constant-work-rate exercise in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dyspnea increases steeply once inspiratory reserve volume (IRV) falls to a critical level that prevents further expansion of tidal volume (Vt). We studied the effects of this mechanical restriction on the quality and intensity of exertional dyspnea and examined the impact of an anticholinergic bronchodilator. In a randomized, double-blind, crossover study, 18 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (forced expiratory volume in 1 s = 40 +/- 3%predicted; mean +/- SE) inhaled tiotropium 18 mug or placebo once daily for 7-10 days each. Pulmonary function tests and symptom-limited cycle exercise at 75% of each patient's maximal work capacity were performed 2 h after dosing. Dyspnea intensity (Borg scale), operating lung volumes, breathing pattern, and esophageal pressure (n = 11) were measured during exercise. Dynamic hyperinflation reached its maximal value early in exercise and was associated with only mild increases in dyspnea intensity and the effort-displacement ratio, which is defined as the ratio between tidal swings of esophageal pressure (expressed relative to maximum inspiratory pressure) and Vt (expressed relative to predicted vital capacity). After a minimal IRV of 0.5 +/- 0.1 liter was reached, both dyspnea and the effort-displacement ratio rose steeply until an intolerable level was reached. Tiotropium did not alter dyspnea-IRV relationships, but the increase in resting and exercise inspiratory capacity was associated with an improved effort-displacement ratio throughout exercise. Once a critically low IRV was reached during exercise, dyspnea rose with the disparity between respiratory effort and the Vt response. Changes in dyspnea intensity after tiotropium were positively correlated with changes in this index of neuromechanical coupling.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".