Effect of Baseline Anxiety and Depression Symptoms on Selected Outcomes Following Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Anxiety and depression are prevalent comorbidities in people with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). This study sought to quantify the influence of varying degrees of anxiety and depression on functional performance and disease impact in a population with CRDs following pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) intervention. METHODS: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), and the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test (CAT) were assessed pre- and post-PR. Participants were categorized into 3 groups (None, Probable, and Present) based on their level of anxiety and depression. Functional performance and disease impact outcomes were compared pre- and post-PR. RESULTS: Patients consisted of a total of 134 program completers (72 males, 62 females; mean age = 67.8 years). Significant improvements in functional performance with regard to 6MWT scores were observed across all groups postintervention (P < .05). The Present group, in both the anxiety and depression domains, failed to reach a minimally clinically important difference postintervention. The Probable and Present groups achieved a significant improvement in CAT scores postintervention (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that symptoms of anxiety and depression in people with CRDs were significantly related to lower exercise tolerance levels and higher levels of disease impact. People with increased levels of anxiety and depression have the potential to significantly improve disease impact outcomes post-PR. The results demonstrated that the detection and treatment of anxiety and depression symptoms in people with CRDs are likely to be clinically important.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".