The effect of postrehabilitation programmes among individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of two post-rehabilitation programmes on functional exercise tolerance and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Subjects with COPD (n=109) were randomised to receive either enhanced follow-up (EF) or conventional follow-up (CF). Subjects in the EF group attended a monthly support group and received a telephone call from a staff member at the midpoint (2 weeks) between their visits. Both groups had scheduled appointments with a physical therapist and physician at 3-monthly intervals after discharge. Longitudinal data were recorded in 85 subjects (37 EF and 48 CF). Over the course of the study, there was no difference in distance walked in 6 min between the two groups but a significant difference for time and a group-time interaction. There was no difference in total chronic respiratory disease questionnaire score between groups at baseline or at any time interval despite a significant difference with time. There was a clear deterioration in functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life after completion of respiratory rehabilitation but no difference between the groups.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".