Treating breathlessness <i>via</i> the brain: changes in brain activity over a course of pulmonary rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breathlessness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often discordant with airway pathophysiology ("over-perception"). Pulmonary rehabilitation profoundly affects breathlessness, without influencing lung function. Learned associations influence brain mechanisms of sensory perception. We hypothesised that improvements in breathlessness with pulmonary rehabilitation may be explained by changing neural representations of learned associations.In 31 patients with COPD, we tested how pulmonary rehabilitation altered the relationship between brain activity during a breathlessness-related word-cue task (using functional magnetic resonance imaging), and clinical and psychological measures of breathlessness.Changes in ratings of breathlessness word cues positively correlated with changes in activity in the insula and anterior cingulate cortex. Changes in ratings of breathlessness-anxiety negatively correlated with activations in attention regulation and motor networks. Baseline activity in the insula, anterior cingulate cortex and prefrontal cortex correlated with improvements in breathlessness and breathlessness-anxiety.Pulmonary rehabilitation is associated with altered neural responses related to learned breathlessness associations, which can ultimately influence breathlessness perception. These findings highlight the importance of targeting learned associations within treatments for COPD, demonstrating how neuroimaging may contribute to patient stratification and more successful personalised therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".