Functional Tests in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Part 2: Measurement Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and an important cause of disability and handicap. For a thorough patient-centered outcome assessment and comprehensive management of the disease, measures of lung function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life, but also of functional capacity in activities of daily life, are necessary. In Part 2 of this seminar series, we discuss the main functional tests to assess upper and lower body functional capacity in patients with COPD to help clinicians substantiate their choice of functional outcome measures in COPD. In agreement with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health to assess functional capacity representative of daily life activities, this review focuses on functional tests that include components such as changing and maintaining body positions, walking, moving, and climbing, as well as carrying, moving, and handling objects. We review the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of these tests. With 11 links to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework addressing several upper and lower body components of functional activities, the Glittre Activities of Daily Life test seems to be the most promising and comprehensive test to evaluate functional capacity in activities of daily life. The links between functional capacity tests and real participation in daily life, as well as with important clinical outcomes such as morbidity and mortality, need further investigation. More studies are also recommended to document minimal detectable changes, minimal clinically important differences, and normative values for these functional tests.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".