Combined physiological effects of bronchodilators and hyperoxia on exertional dyspnoea in normoxic COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies examining the physiological interactions of oxygen (O(2)) and bronchodilators (BD) during exercise in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should provide new insights into mechanisms of exercise intolerance. We examined the effects of O(2) and BD, alone and in combination, on dyspnoea, ventilation (e), breathing pattern, operating lung volumes, and exercise endurance. METHODS: In a randomised, double blind, crossover study, 16 patients with COPD (mean (SE) FEV(1) 43(3)% predicted) performed pulmonary function tests and an incremental exercise test, then completed four visits in which they received either nebulised BD (ipratropium 0.5 mg + salbutamol 2.5 mg) or placebo (PL) with either 50% O(2) or room air (RA). After 90-105 minutes the patients performed pulmonary function tests, then breathed RA or O(2) during symptom limited constant load exercise at 75% peak work rate. RESULTS: With BD the mean (SE) increase in inspiratory capacity (IC) was 0.3 (0.1) l (p<0.05) at rest and during exercise, permitting greater tidal volume (Vt) expansion during exercise and a greater peak e. With O(2), e decreased during exercise as a result of decreased breathing frequency (F), with no significant change in IC. During exercise with BD+O(2), IC and Vt increased, F decreased, and e did not change. Dyspnoea decreased with all interventions at a standardised time during exercise compared with PL+RA (p<0.05). Endurance time was significantly (p<0.05) greater with BD+O(2) (10.4 (1.6) min) than with O(2) (8.5 (1.4) min), BD (7.1 (1.3) min) and PL+RA (5.4 (0.9) min). CONCLUSION: By combining the benefits of BD (reduced hyperinflation) and O(2) (reduced ventilatory drive), additive effects on exercise endurance were observed in patients with normoxic COPD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".