Oral <i>N</i>-acetylcysteine and exercise tolerance in mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heightened oxidative stress is implicated in the progressive impairment of skeletal muscle vascular and mitochondrial function in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Whether accumulation of reactive oxygen species contributes to exercise intolerance in the early stages of COPD is unknown. The purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of oral antioxidant treatment with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) on respiratory, cardiovascular, and locomotor muscle function and exercise tolerance in patients with mild COPD. Thirteen patients [forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)-to-forced vital capacity ratio < lower limit of normal (LLN) and FEV1 ≥ LLN) were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized crossover study to receive NAC (1,800 mg/day) or placebo for 4 days. Severe-intensity constant-load exercise tests were performed with noninvasive measurements of central hemodynamics (stroke volume, heart rate, and cardiac output via impedance cardiography), arterial blood pressure, pulmonary ventilation and gas exchange, quadriceps muscle oxygenation (near-infrared spectroscopy), and estimated capillary blood flow. Nine patients completed the study with no major adverse clinical effects. Although NAC elevated plasma glutathione by ~27% compared with placebo ( P < 0.05), there were no differences in exercise tolerance (placebo: 325 ± 47 s, NAC: 336 ± 51 s), central hemodynamics, arterial blood pressure, pulmonary ventilation or gas exchange, locomotor muscle oxygenation, or capillary blood flow from rest to exercise between conditions ( P > 0.05 for all). In conclusion, modulation of plasma redox status with oral NAC treatment was not translated into beneficial effects on central or peripheral components of the oxygen transport pathway, thereby failing to improve exercise tolerance in nonhypoxemic patients with mild COPD. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Acute antioxidant treatment with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) elevated plasma glutathione but did not modulate central or peripheral components of the O2 transport pathway, thereby failing to improve exercise tolerance in patients with mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".