MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415183440 · doi:10.4414/smw.2004.10716

Pulmonary rehabilitation: an integral part of the long-term management of COPD

2004· review· en· W2415183440 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Lacasse, François Maltais, Roger Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueSwiss Medical Weekly · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary rehabilitationRehabilitationCOPDPhysical therapyPsychological interventionBreathing exercisesPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBreathingIntensive care medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary rehabilitation comprises a variety of interventions grouped into three main categories: exercise training, education, and psychological support. Typically, patients participate in a programme of exercise rehabilitation 2-3 times a week for 6-12 weeks, at the same time being encouraged to incorporate breathing and stretching exercises as part of their daily routine. The physiological rationale for pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD is primarily based on its effect on peripheral muscle dysfunction. A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that pulmonary rehabilitation is effective in reducing dyspnoea and fatigue as well as improving patients' sense of control (mastery) over their condition. Without compliance with a maintenance programme these improvements will diminish with time. The value of various components of rehabilitation, programme length, the required degree of supervision, the intensity of training and the best approach to maintaining programme adherence represent issues that remain to be explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwiss Medical WeeklySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207