Stair-Climbing Capacity as a Marker of Improvement Following Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the potential and safety of a stair-climbing test as a tool to monitor improvement following pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Stair-climbing capacity was assessed in 139 patients with COPD before and after a comprehensive 8-week PR program, which included stair-climbing training. Stair-climbing capacity was assessed as the total number of flights of stairs climbed without stopping. A constant work rate endurance test (CET) was also performed before and after PR. Change in stair-climbing after PR (Δstairs) was compared and correlated to the change in endurance time (ΔCET) and, for 40 patients, to the change in COPD assessment test (ΔCAT) score. RESULTS: Most patients had moderate to severe COPD (mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second = 54% ± 20% predicted). Stair-climbing capacity, endurance time, and CAT score improved after PR (2.8 ± 1.4 vs 8.3 ± 3.3 flights, 408 ± 272 vs 717 ± 415 seconds, and 20.0 ± 6.4 vs 17.6 ± 6.6 units, respectively; P value for all < .001). Δstairs was moderately correlated to ΔCET (r = 0.49; P < .001) and well correlated to ΔCAT (r = -0.71; P < .001). Patients with greater change in Δstairs had better baseline resting lung function and aerobic capacity. No adverse events were reported during stair-climbing. CONCLUSION: Stair-climbing is responsive to training in patients with COPD and is correlated to the change in CAT score following PR. Although the test requires further standardization, it could eventually be used as a simple and safe way to assess improvement following interventions in 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".