[Can individualized rehabilitation improve functional independence in elderly patients with COPD?].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study objectives The aims of this study were to establish whether pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves domestic function and daily activity levels in COPD and whether individually targeted exercise is more effective than general exercise. Design Prospective randomized, controlled trial. Setting Outpatient PR program in secondary care. Participants One-hundred eighty patients (mean [±SD] age, 68.3 ± 8.6 years; FEV 1 , 0.95 ± 0.4 L; FEV 1 /FVC ratio, 0.51 ± 0.15; 111 male patients; 69 female patients) with stable COPD. One hundred twenty-one patients completed the study. Interventions Patients were randomized to a conventional 7-week general exercise program ([GEP] n=90) or an individually targeted exercise program ([ITEP] n=90). Measurement and results Daily activity was measured using ambulatory activity monitors (Z80 –32k V1 Int; Gaehwiler Electronics; Hombrechtikon, Switzerland). These were lightweight devices, which contained a uniaxial accelerometer. Domestic function was assessed by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Exercise performance was assessed by the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) and the endurance shuttle walk test and health status by the chronic respiratory questionnaire–self-reported. Activity monitor counts increased by 29.18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.19 to 55.17; p=0.03) for the GEP and 40.63% (95% CI, 7.42 to 73.83; p=0.02) for the ITEP. Mean COPM performance scores increased by 1.71 (95% CI, 1.37 to 2.05; p=0.0001) for the GEP and 1.46 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.87; p=0.0001) for the ITEP. Mean COPM satisfaction scores increased by 2.27 (95% CI, 1.74 to 2.81; p=0.0001) for the GEP and 2.04 (95% CI, 1.56 to 2.52; p=0.0001) for the ITEP. ISWT scores increased by 81.72 m (range, 63.83 to 99.62) for the GEP and by 85.52 m (range, 67.62 to 103.42) for the ITEP. No statistically significant difference was found between the general exercise group and the individually targeted exercise group for any outcome measure. Conclusions Pulmonary rehabilitation improves domestic function and physical activity. This study also demonstrates that general exercise training is as effective as individually targeted training.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".