Fatigue in COPD: Prevalence and effect on outcomes in pulmonary rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complain of dyspnea and fatigue. We sought to estimate the prevalence of high fatigue in this population and to determine whether individuals with high fatigue had a different response to pulmonary rehabilitation. This observational study was embedded within a randomized trial. Participants underwent 3 months of pulmonary rehabilitation including education and exercise training. We divided 251 individuals into low and high fatigue groups using population normal scores of the SF-36 vitality domain. Baseline data included spirometry, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), peak exercise capacity, constant workrate cycling endurance time, and questionnaires including the St. George's and Chronic Respiratory questionnaires (SGRQ, CRQ). The response to pulmonary rehabilitation was evaluated using changes in these measures at 3 months and 1 year after entry. High fatigue was present in 97/251 (39%) of patients. High fatigue patients were younger, had more depressive symptoms, greater dyspnea and poorer SGRQ scores (p < 0.01). They also had lower 6MWD, endurance times, and peak volume of oxygen consumption (VO(2); p < 0.05). Patients in both groups improved similarly in their dyspnea, the 6MWD and endurance time. High-fatigue patients had greater improvements in both the CRQ fatigue (by 0.74 more points) and the SGRQ scores (by 6.0 points; p < 0.01), with clinically significant gains maintained at 1 year. This study suggests that high levels of fatigue is a common feature in patients with COPD. They have a lower exercise capacity and a lower health status. However, they benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".