The Link between Reduced Inspiratory Capacity and Exercise Intolerance in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low inspiratory capacity (IC), chronic dyspnea, and reduced exercise capacity are inextricably linked and are independent predictors of increased mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is no surprise, therefore, that a major goal of management is to improve IC by reducing lung hyperinflation to improve respiratory symptoms and health-related quality of life. The negative effects of lung hyperinflation on respiratory muscle and cardiocirculatory function during exercise are now well established. Moreover, there is growing appreciation that a key mechanism of exertional dyspnea in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is critical mechanical constraints on tidal volume expansion during exercise when resting IC is reduced. Further evidence for the importance of lung hyperinflation comes from multiple studies, which have reported the clinical benefits of therapeutic interventions that reduce lung hyperinflation and increase IC. A reduced IC in obstructive pulmonary disease is further eroded by exercise and contributes to ventilatory limitation and dyspnea. It is an important outcome for both clinical and research studies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".