Mechanisms of exercise intolerance in Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease grade 1 COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if a dissociation existed between respiratory drive, as estimated by diaphragmatic electromyography (EMGdi), and its pressure-generating capacity during exercise in mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and whether this, if present, had negative sensory consequences. Subjects meeting spirometric criteria for mild COPD (n=16) and age and sex-matched controls (n=16) underwent detailed pulmonary function testing and a symptom limited cycle test while detailed ventilatory, sensory and respiratory mechanical responses were measured. Compared with controls, subjects with mild COPD had greater ventilatory requirements throughout submaximal exercise. At the highest equivalent work rate of 60 W, they had a significantly higher: total work of breathing (32±17 versus 16±7 J·min(-1); p<0.01); EMGdi (37.3±17.3 versus 17.9±11.7% of maximum; p<0.001); and EMGdi to transdiaphragmatic pressure ratio (0.87±0.38 versus 0.52±0.27; p<0.01). Dyspnoea-ventilation slopes were significantly higher in mild COPD than controls (0.17±0.12 versus 0.10±0.05; p<0.05). However, absolute dyspnoea ratings reached significant levels only at high levels of ventilation. Increased respiratory effort and work of breathing, and a wider dissociation between diaphragmatic activation and pressure-generating capacity were found at standardised work rates in subjects with mild COPD compared with controls. Despite these mechanical and neuromuscular abnormalities, significant dyspnoea was only experienced at higher work rates.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".