Physiological and clinical relevance of exercise ventilatory efficiency in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise ventilation ( V ′ E ) relative to carbon dioxide output ( V ′ CO 2 ) is particularly relevant to patients limited by the respiratory system, e.g. those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). High V ′ E − V ′ CO 2 (poor ventilatory efficiency) has been found to be a key physiological abnormality in symptomatic patients with largely preserved forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ). Establishing an association between high V ′ E − V ′ CO 2 and exertional dyspnoea in mild COPD provides evidence that exercise intolerance is not a mere consequence of detraining. As the disease evolves, poor ventilatory efficiency might help explaining “out-of-proportion” breathlessness (to FEV 1 impairment). Regardless, disease severity, cardiocirculatory co-morbidities such as heart failure and pulmonary hypertension have been found to increase V ′ E − V ′ CO 2 . In fact, a high V ′ E − V ′ CO 2 has been found to be a powerful predictor of poor outcome in lung resection surgery. Moreover, a high V ′ E − V ′ CO 2 has added value to resting lung hyperinflation in predicting all-cause and respiratory mortality across the spectrum of COPD severity. Documenting improved ventilatory efficiency after lung transplantation and lung volume reduction surgery provides objective evidence of treatment efficacy. Considering the usefulness of exercise ventilatory efficiency in different clinical scenarios, the V ′ E − V ′ CO 2 relationship should be valued in the interpretation of cardiopulmonary exercise tests in patients with mild-to-end-stage 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".