Bibliographic record
Abstract
A truly successful pulmonary rehabilitation entails implementing physical activity maintenance. This article reviews the current knowledge on pulmonary rehabilitation and the expected benefits, the setting, the relationship between self-management and pulmonary rehabilitation, in order to develop and implement clinically-effective physical activity maintenance interventions. The effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation is well-established. However, access to pulmonary rehabilitation is limited. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation has been shown to be an effective, equivalent alternative to outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients. The opportunity to offer different pulmonary rehabilitation settings tailored to individual needs should improve accessibility to this intervention. Sustained long-term physical activity remains the most important challenge for COPD patients. We need a dependable system of coordinated health care interventions and communication, and components that include self-management support. Self-management should be an integrated part of pulmonary rehabilitation and remain long after the pulmonary rehabilitation is completed. By early identification of patients who may have difficulty maintaining exercise and implementing appropriate self-management interventions during and after the rehabilitation program, it may be possible to promote better long-term involvement in physical activity. Pulmonary rehabilitation should not stand alone; the best program is that which can be maintained to translate into a continuous increase in the activities of daily living. Future research should evaluate the effect of self-management interventions combined with pulmonary rehabilitation to improve long-term activity and exercise maintenance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".