Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation programs have been proposed as an alternative to hospital-based programs for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We undertook a systematic review of randomized studies on home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD which report health-related quality of life and/or exercise capacity, in order to assess the benefits of this intervention. MAIN FINDINGS: From 888 identified references, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was average to poor. Eight studies compared home-based rehabilitation to standard care, three compared home-based rehabilitation to hospital-based programs and one included both comparisons. Most of the studies showed improvement in health-related quality of life (statistically and clinically significant) and exercise capacity following home-based rehabilitation as compared with standard care (no pulmonary rehabilitation). Studies that compared home-based pulmonary rehabilitation with hospital-based outpatient programs have not been able to show statistically and clinically significant differences for health-related quality of life and exercise capacity. Adverse events, usually mild, were reported in only two studies. SUMMARY: Self-monitored, home-based rehabilitation may be an alternative to outpatient rehabilitation. These findings can help expand the recognition, application and accessibility of pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with COPD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".