Pulmonary rehabilitation and severe exacerbations of COPD: solution or white elephant?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospitalisations for severe exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are associated with significant physical and psychological consequences including an increase in symptom severity, severe reductions in physical activity, a deleterious effect on skeletal muscle, impaired exercise tolerance/ability to self-care, decline in quality of life, and increased anxiety and depression. As these consequences are potentially amenable to exercise training, there is a clear rationale for pulmonary rehabilitation in the peri/post-exacerbation setting. Although a 2011 Cochrane review was overwhelmingly positive, subsequent trials have shown less benefit and real-life observational studies have revealed poor acceptability. Qualitative studies have demonstrated that the patient experience is a determining factor while the presence of comorbidities may influence referral, adherence and response to pulmonary rehabilitation. Systematic reviews of less supervised interventions, such as self-management, have shown limited benefits in the post-exacerbation setting. The recent update of the Cochrane review of peri-exacerbation pulmonary rehabilitation showed that benefits were associated with the "comprehensive" nature of the intervention (the number of sessions received, the intensity of exercise training and education delivered, and the degree of supervision) but implementation is demanding. The challenge is to develop interventions that are deliverable and acceptable around the time of an acute exacerbation but also deliver the desired clinical impact.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".