MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163457410 · doi:10.1183/09031936.00034714

Mechanisms of exercise intolerance in Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease grade 1 COPD

2014· article· en· W2163457410 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan A. Guenette, Roberto C. Chin, Sicheng Cheng, Paolo B. Dominelli, Natya Raghavan, Katherine A. Webb, J. Alberto Neder, Denis E. O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalProvidence Health Care Research InstituteKingston General HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Lung AssociationSt. Paul's FoundationProvidence Health CareNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's UniversityCanadian Thoracic Society
KeywordsCOPDMedicineWork of breathingDiaphragmatic breathingVentilation (architecture)Respiratory systemCardiologyWork ratePhysical therapyExercise intoleranceNeuromuscular diseaseControl of respirationInternal medicinePulmonary function testingLung volumesObstructive lung diseaseRespiratory minute volumeLungDiseaseHeart rateBlood pressurePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations133
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207