Role of exercise evaluation in restrictive lung disease: new insights between March 2001 and February 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restrictive lung disease is often first detected when patients complain of dyspnea on exertion. Many forms of exercise testing are available, from simple hallway oximetry to the more formal and more complex cardiopulmonary exercise test. Although the use of exercise for diagnosis, treatment, and predicting outcomes is largely understudied in this population, it has recently been shown to be of value in some settings. Exercise testing may be a valuable diagnostic tool in determining the extent of lung disease in sarcoidosis. Medinger et al. reported that the symptom-limited exercise test detected pulmonary dysfunction earlier than history, physical examination, chest radiography, and spirometry alone. Furthermore, Delobbe et al. noted that in patients with biopsy-proved sarcoidosis, cardiopulmonary exercise testing was a more sensitive indicator of early lung disease than pulmonary function tests. The American College of Chest Physicians/American Thoracic Society have published an updated consensus statement for cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Christensen et al. reported that patients with restrictive lung disease may be at risk for hypoxemia with light exercise while on an airplane, and suggest that these patients be considered for in-flight oxygen therapy. Lastly, Herridge and the Canadian Critical Care Trial Group used the 6-minute walk test to prove that survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome have significant functional limitation 1 year after discharge from the intensive care unit largely secondary to neuromuscular sequelae. Exercise testing appears to be a valuable tool in evaluating, treating, and predicting outcomes in patients with restrictive lung disease. Further study will help to support its use in other restrictive lung diseases.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".