Cardiovascular benefits from standard pulmonary rehabilitation are related to baseline exercise tolerance levels in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heightened arterial stiffness is a marker of cardiovascular risk and is elevated in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Physical activity has been shown to reduce arterial stiffness, and our previous work has shown that arterial stiffness is related to physical activity and exercise tolerance in COPD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether baseline physical activity and exercise tolerance influence the cardiovascular benefits associated with standard COPD outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). METHODS: A total of 66 patients with COPD were recruited from the G.F. MacDonald Centre for Lung Health, Edmonton, Alberta, prior to entering PR. Another 23 COPD patients not attending the PR program were recruited as time controls (TC). Arterial stiffness (carotid-radial pulse wave velocity, PWV), physical activity (steps taken over three days), and 6-min walk distance (6MWD) were assessed before and after PR, or before and after six weeks of standard care. RESULTS: Thirty-nine PR and 11 TC completed all parts of the study. Following PR, there was no overall change in PWV. However, changes in arterial stiffness with PR were dependent on baseline exercise tolerance, with those patients with a 6MWD <350 m showing a significant reduction in PWV following PR (6MWD >350 m: 8.2 ± 1.6 to 8.5 ± 1.7 versus 6MWD <350 m: 9.2 ± 0.6 to 7.3 ± 2.0 m/s, p < 0.05). The PWV response to PR was not influenced by baseline physical activity levels. CONCLUSION: COPD patients with low exercise tolerance appear to derive the greatest cardiovascular benefits from PR.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".