Comparison of the Oxygen Cost of Breathing Exercises and Spontaneous Breathing in Patients With Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The oxygen demand of breathing exercises and the clinical implications have not been studied in detail. In this study, the oxygen cost of 3 common breathing exercises believed to reduce oxygen cost (ie, work of breathing) was compared with that of spontaneous breathing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). SUBJECTS: Thirty subjects with stable, moderately severe COPD participated. METHODS: Oxygen consumption (VO2) and respiratory rate (RR) during spontaneous breathing at rest (SB) were recorded for 10 minutes. Subjects then performed 3 breathing exercises in random order, with a rest between exercises: diaphragmatic breathing (DB), pursed-lip breathing (PLB), and a combination of DB and PLB (CB). Oxygen consumption and RR were measured. RESULTS: Mean VO2 ( SD) was lower during the breathing exercises (165.8 +/- 22.3 mL O2/min for DB, 164.8 +/- 20.9 mL O2/min for PLB, and 167.7 +/- 20.7 mL O2/min for CB) compared with SB (174.5 +/- 25.2 mL O2/min). Correspondingly, mean RR (+/- SD) was higher during SB (17.3 +/- 4.23 breaths/min), followed by DB (15.0 +/- 4.32 breaths/min), PLB (12.8 +/- 3.53 breaths/min), and CB (11.2 +/- 2.7 breaths/min). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Given that patients do not spontaneously adopt the breathing pattern with the least O2 and the lowest RR, the results suggest that determinants of the breathing pattern other than metabolic demand warrant being a primary focus in 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".