Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the effect of an individually targeted exercise programme when compared to a general exercise programme in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The effect of these programmes upon domestic function and daily activity is also examined.;Initially, the test-retest reliability of the primary measure of domestic function, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was examined. The COPM was completed in 15 patients with stable COPD. The intra class correlation coefficients were high indicating that the COPM is a reliable measure in patients with COPD.;A large randomised prospective trial was then completed. 185 patients with stable COPD referred for seven-week hospital based, outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme, were recruited. A third of these patients (n=61) were initially assigned to a pre treatment group in order to establish the variability of all outcome measures.;Patients were randomly assigned to either a general exercise programme (GEP) (n=90) or an individually targeted exercise programme (ITEP) (n=90). Functional targets for patients in the ITEP were identified using the COPM. Activity monitors measured daily activity. Exercise performance was measured using the Incremental Shuttle Walking Test and the Endurance Shuttle Walk Test and measures of health status were also employed. Both treatment groups made statistically significant improvements in domestic function, exercise performance and health status. However there were no statistically significant differences between the GEP and the ITEP. This study demonstrated that general exercise training is as effective as more complex individually targeted training.;ITEP is no more effective at prolonging the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation when compared the GEP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".