High Oxygen Delivery to Preserve Exercise Capacity in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Treated with Nintedanib. Methodology of the HOPE-IPF Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Pulmonary rehabilitation improves dyspnea and exercise capacity in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF); however, it is unknown whether breathing high amounts of oxygen during exercise training leads to further benefits. OBJECTIVES: Herein, we describe the design of the High Oxygen Delivery to Preserve Exercise Capacity in IPF Patients Treated with Nintedanib study (the HOPE-IPF study). The primary objective of this study is to determine the physiological and perceptual impact of breathing high levels of oxygen during exercise training in patients with IPF who are receiving antifibrotic therapy. METHODS: HOPE-IPF is a two-arm double-blind multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial of 88 patients with IPF treated with nintedanib. Patients will undergo 8 weeks of three times weekly aerobic cycle exercise training, breathing a hyperoxic gas mixture with a constant fraction of 60% inhaled oxygen, or breathing up to 40% oxygen as required to maintain an oxygen saturation level of at least 88%. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: End points will be assessed at baseline, postintervention (Week 8), and follow-up (Week 26). The primary analysis will compare the between-group baseline with post-training change in endurance time during constant work rate cycle exercise tests. Additional analyses will evaluate the impact of training with high oxygen delivery on 6-minute walk distance, dyspnea, physical activity, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The HOPE-IPF study will lead to a comprehensive understanding of IPF exercise physiology, with the potential to change clinical practice by indicating the need for increased delivery of supplemental oxygen during pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with IPF. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02551068).
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".