MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2745419783 · doi:10.1097/hcr.0000000000000282

Cardiorespiratory Responses to Short Bouts of Resistance Training Exercises in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2017· article· en· W2745419783 on OpenAlexaff
Priscila Robles, Tamara Araújo, Dina Brooks, Karl Zabjek, Tania Janaudis‐Ferreira, Susan Marzolini, Roger Goldstein, Sunita Mathur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessResistance trainingPulmonary diseasePhysical therapyDiseaseCardiologyInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Resistance training is recommended in pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, the acute cardiorespiratory responses to different intensities of resistance training are not known. We compared acute cardiorespiratory responses with high-intensity versus low-intensity resistance exercises in persons with COPD and healthy, matched controls. This research may assist in developing training parameters in COPD. METHODS: Participants (n = 10 per group) performed 1 set of 10 repetitions of leg extension and arm elevation at 2 intensities: 40% (low) and 80% (high) of 1-repetition maximum. Minute ventilation ((Equation is included in full-text article.)E), oxygen uptake ((Equation is included in full-text article.)O2), and heart rate (HR) data were collected continuously and expressed as absolute values and relative to values at (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2peak derived from a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were monitored before and after each set of exercises. RESULTS: Individuals with COPD showed similar (Equation is included in full-text article.)E, (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2, and HR with high- versus low-intensity exercises. RPE was higher after high- vs low-intensity leg extension (4 ± 1.4 vs 2 ± 1, P < .005) and arm elevation (3 ± 2 vs 1 ± 1.4, P < .005). Compared with healthy participants, relative (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2, (Equation is included in full-text article.)E, and HR were higher in COPD (≅40% vs 20% of the (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2peak; ≅60% vs 20% of (Equation is included in full-text article.)Epeak; and ≅80% vs 20% of HRpeak; all Ps ≤ .004). Absolute responses and RPE were similar between groups, irrespective of intensity and exercise. CONCLUSION: Immediate cardiorespiratory responses to an acute bout of resistance exercise appear to be independent of the exercise intensity in COPD. Although people with COPD are working closer to their (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2peak, their responses and RPE are comparable with healthy controls.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→