CAT and pulmonary rehabilitation: Where is the gain?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) plays an important part on the quality of life of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) questionnaire is validated to respond positively on quality of life after PR. The goal of the study is to explore on which domain (question) of the CAT questionnaire will PR have an significant impact. Methods: CAT questionnaire has been administered to 72 patients (41 women aged 68 +/- 6 yrs ; 31 men aged 60 yrs +/- 8 yrs) with COPD (FEV1 predicted average 54.93% +/- 16.92%) who completed a 8 week PR program. The components of the CAT questionnaire were analysed pre and post PR. Results: The mean CAT score before PR was 18.65 points, with a clinically significant change of – 3.07 points after PR. Significant changes were found for question 4 (P < 0.0001), 5 (P= 0.02), 6 (P=0.03) and 8 (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Results confirmed the hypothesis of a significant improvement on CAT questions 4, 5, 6, and 8 after PR. These domains are partly related to daily activities and exercise tolerance. This study confirms the positive impact of PR on patient9s confidence with physical activity and anxiety. Long term modifications of these scores would be of interest.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".