Breathing pattern and gas exchange at peak exercise in COPD patients with and without tidal flow limitation at rest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expiratory flow limitation (FL) at rest is frequently present in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. It promotes dynamic hyperinflation with a consequent decrease in inspiratory capacity (IC). Since in COPD resting IC is strongly correlated with exercise tolerance, this study hypothesized that this is due to limitation of the maximal tidal volume (VT,max) during exercise by the reduced IC. The present study investigated the role of tidal FL at rest on: 1) the relationship of resting IC to VT,max; and 2) on gas exchange during peak exercise in COPD patients. Fifty-two stable COPD patients were studied at rest, using the negative expiratory pressure technique to assess the presence of FL, and during incremental symptom-limited cycling exercise to evaluate exercise performance. At rest, FL was present in 29 patients. In the 52 patients, a close relationship of VT,max to IC was found using non-normalized values (r=0.77; p < 0.0001), and stepwise regression analysis selected IC as the only significant predictor of VT,max. Subgroup analysis showed that this was also the case for patients both with and without FL (r=0.70 and 0.76, respectively). In addition, in FL patients there was an increase (p < 0.002) in arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure at peak exercise, mainly due to a relatively low VT,max and consequent increase in the physiological dead space (VD)/VT ratio. The arterial oxygen partial pressure also decreased at peak exercise in the FL patients (p < 0.05). In conclusion, in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients the maximal tidal volume, and hence maximal oxygen consumption, are closely related to the reduced inspiratory capacity. The flow limited patients also exhibit a significant increase in arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure and a decrease in arterial oxygen partial pressure during peak exercise.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".