Enhancing exercise tolerance and physical activity in COPD with combined pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions: PHYSACTO randomised, placebo-controlled study design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with exercise limitation and physical inactivity, which are believed to have significant long-term negative health consequences for patients. While a number of COPD treatments and exercise training programmes increase exercise capacity, there is limited evidence for their effects on physical activity levels, with no clear association between exercise capacity and physical activity in clinical trials. Physical activity depends on a number of behaviour, environmental and physiological factors. We describe the design of the PHYSACTO trial, which is investigating the effects of bronchodilators, either alone or with exercise training, in combination with a standardised behaviour-change self-management programme, on exercise capacity and physical activity in patients with COPD. It is hypothesised that bronchodilators in conjunction with a behaviour-change self-management programme will improve physical activity and that this effect will be amplified by the addition of exercise training. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients are being recruited from 34 sites in Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada and Europe. Patients receiving a multicomponent intervention designed to support behaviour change related to physical activity are randomised to four treatment arms: placebo, tiotropium, tiotropium+olodaterol, and tiotropium+olodaterol+exercise training. The primary outcome is improvement in exercise capacity after 8 weeks, measured by endurance time during a shuttle walk test. The secondary outcome is improvement in physical activity, including objective accelerometer assessment and patient-reported functioning using the Functional Performance Inventory-Short Form and the novel hybrid PROactive instrument. Additionally, the influence of moderating variables (ie, factors influencing a patient's choice to be physically active) on increases in physical activity is also explored. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the relevant Institutional Review Boards, Independent Ethics Committee and Competent Authority according to national and international regulations. The findings of the trial will be disseminated through relevant peer-reviewed journals and international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02085161.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".