MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ventilatory Inefficiency and Exertional Dyspnea in Early Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2017· review· en· W2597997793 on OpenAlexaff
J. Alberto Neder, Danilo Cortozi Berton, Paulo de Tarso Müller, Amany F. Elbehairy, Alcides Rocha, Paolo Palange, Denis E. O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInefficiencyMedicineExertional dyspneaPulmonary diseaseCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Exertional dyspnea is present across the spectrum of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) severity. However, without realizing it themselves, patients may decrease daily physical activity to avoid distressing respiratory sensations. Dyspnea also may be associated with deconditioning. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing can uncover exertional dyspnea and its physiological determinants in patients with preserved or only mildly reduced FEV1. Dyspnea in mild COPD can largely be explained by increased “wasted” ventilation in the physiological dead space, which heightens the drive to breathe and worsens the inspiratory mechanical constraints. During incremental exercise testing, this is readily identified as an excessive ventilation-to-metabolic demand, that is, a high ventilation (V.e) to carbon dioxide output (V.co2) relationship. Linking increases in V.e/V.co2 to exertional dyspnea may provide objective evidence that a patient’s poor exercise tolerance is not just a consequence of deconditioning. This information should prompt a proactive therapeutic approach to increase the available ventilatory reserve by, for example, giving inhaled bronchodilators. Considering that the structural determinants of ventilatory inefficiency (early emphysema, ventilation–perfusion mismatching, and microvascular disease) may progress despite only modest changes in FEV1, serial V.e/V.co2 measurements might also prove valuable to track disease progression in these symptomatic patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207