Success in Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is beneficial for some, but not all, patients with chronic lung disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the success rate of a comprehensive PR program for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to characterize the differences between responders and nonresponders. METHODS: A chart review was performed on patients with a clinical diagnosis of COPD who were referred for PR. Success was defined according to clinically important changes in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores and⁄or 6 min walk test distance. RESULTS: The majority of subjects were men (58%) with a mean (± SD) age of 69±10 years (n=177). Sixty-two per cent of participants had a successful outcome with PR, with proportionally more responders noting subjective improvement than objective improvement on a 6 min walk test (73% versus 51%). Subjects with poor baseline St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores tended to improve the most (P=0.011 [ANOVA]). Successful participants had a greater forced expired volume in 1 s (1.1 L versus 0.9 L; P<0.05) and a lower BODE index (body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity index) at baseline (9.6 versus 10.3; P<0.05). Success of PR was not correlated with age, sex, chronic hypoxemic respiratory failure or other chronic conditions. Successful participants were more likely to be compliant and to experience fewer adverse events (P≤0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study reinforced the belief that the majority of participants with COPD benefit from PR. Few baseline characteristics were predictive of success. Subjectively measured improvement occurred more frequently than objectively measured improvement and was greatest in those with the poorest baseline values.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it