Success in Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
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.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".