Effect of morphine on breathlessness and exercise endurance in advanced COPD: a randomised crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of morphine on exertional breathlessness and exercise endurance in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In a randomised crossover trial, we compared the acute effect of immediate-release oral morphine versus placebo on physiological and perceptual responses during constant-load cardiopulmonary cycle exercise testing (CPET) in 20 adults with advanced COPD and chronic breathlessness syndrome. Compared with placebo, morphine reduced exertional breathlessness at isotime by 1.2±0.4 Borg units and increased exercise endurance time by 2.5±0.9 min (both p≤0.014). During exercise at isotime, morphine decreased ventilation by 1.3±0.5 L·min −1 and breathing frequency by 2.0±0.9 breaths·min −1 (both p≤0.041). Compared with placebo, morphine decreased exertional breathlessness at isotime by ≥1 Borg unit in 11 participants (responders) and by <1 Borg unit in nine participants (non-responders). Baseline participant characteristics, including pulmonary function and cardiorespiratory fitness, were similar between responders and non-responders. A higher percentage of responders versus non-responders stopped incremental CPET due to intolerable breathlessness: 82 versus 33% (p=0.028). Immediate-release oral morphine improved exertional breathlessness and exercise endurance in some, but not all, adults with advanced COPD. The locus of symptom-limitation on laboratory-based CPET may help to identify patients most likely to benefit from morphine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".